Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:41, 11 June 2006

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives
Talk:Nakhichevan/archive Talk:Nakhichevan/archive2

Names

Generally, we only include the official languages when naming, regardless of where the name came from. Therefore, Azeri is an obvious one to go in. (Example of this: Somalia doesn't include the Arabic name because Arabic is not an official language of Somalia, if it had any at all)

We also generally include previous official languages, especially when notable for the region. Therefore, Russian.

However, it's been quite a long time since Armenia controlled the area, so I'm not yet convinced that we should include Armenian, even if the name originally was Armenian. Let's chat, rather than having a useless edit war. --Golbez 18:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Golbez. I see no reason whatsoever for inclusion of the name of the autonomy in languages other than the official language in that territory. It is not justified by Wiki rules. In various times the region was part of various empires and states, why should we list the name in all those languages? We don’t have the name of Yerevan spelled in Azeri, despite the fact that Azeris were the majority there before the break-up of the Russian empire and ruled it as Erivan khanate before the Russian conquest. I can understand inclusion of the Russian name, since Azerbaijan was part of the USSR, but I’m not sure whether it’s done in other similar articles. But inclusion of any other spelling is not justified and therefore should be removed. Grandmaster 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, now we can remove all Turkish names in Armenian articles, ie: Lake Sevan etc.--Eupator 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

And Armenian names from Kars as well. Why it should be there anyway? Armenian names should be used only for the territory of the state of Armenia. Grandmaster 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Kars is not in Azerbaijan. If there is any territory in Armenia that was controlled by Turkey in the past, feel free to add its name.--Eupator 19:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian names in places historically related to Armenians can be mentioned, even those lands are not in Armenia any more. The same goes for the Turkish names in Armenia and for any other such situation. The difference is that it should be mentioned in the history section, in the historical context. If we write it next to the name in the article it puts it in a current context, which is wrong. So, please include the relevant names in history section, I am against omission altogether and pretendiong that these peoples had nothing to do with these lands ever. Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran too, have places associated with all of these peoples. --TimBits 19:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't even mentioned in a historical context. Hakob 23:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I re-added the names in Russian and Armenian, since it's an important aspect of the history of Nakhichevan.--Moosh88 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I readded Turkish name as well, as it is also an important aspect of the history of Nakhichevan, same as Persian. I suppose you won't mind adding Azeri spelling for Yerevan, it was ruled by Azeris for centuries and was a capital of Irevan khanate. Also how about Russian, Turkish and Persian spellings of the name of the Armenian capital? Grandmaster 09:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted the Armenian name on Nakhichevan because it means "Place of first descent" in the Armenian language. What does it mean in Azeri? Hakob 20:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of the word “Nakhchivan”

The word “Nakhchivan” was differently presented in early sources. “Naksuana” in Greek, “Nakhch” in pehlevi, “Nashawa” or “Nakhchuan” in Arabic. In some Turkish sources Nakhchivan was presented as “Nagshijahan.” The city name was presented as “Nakhch” in the pehlevi language on the coins minted in the name of Sasany emperor on VI century. In the Persian sources the city name was given as “Nakhjir.” Yagut Hemevi named the city “Nashawa”, Muhammed ibn Hindushah Nakhchivani and Hamdullah Gazvini named it “Naqshi-Jahan.” Some state that he word “Nakhchivan” is of Turkish origin meaning the motherland of Akhchivan-Nakhchivan Oghuz braves. The recent research explains the origin of the word “Nakhchivan” in connection with the word “Nahhunte” in the elam language. And some researchers associate the name “Nakhchivan” with Nuh legend.

The recent researches proved that the word “Nakhchivan” is an ethnotoponym relating the name of the ancient local kin (nakh, nakhch). While (V century) dealing with the tribes who lived in the Caucasus, Moisey Khorenly mentioned the Nakhjamajen (nakhje) tribe as well. “Van” meant location, house and settlement. According to Z.Yampolskiy, the word “van” is in the Midian language, and means settlement places of the ancient Azerbaijani tribes. That’s the word “Nakhchivan” means the settlement of “nakhch” (“nakhche”) tribes

What does it matter? What do Massachusetts or Mississippi mean in English? Grandmaster 17:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

None in the case of both since those who came up with the names Massachusetts and Mississippi never had a state, flag or army :) --Eupator 18:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

How about Paris or London? The names are not written in Latin. And do the rules require flag or state or army to include the name in a certain language? Grandmaster 10:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I listed this dispute for request for comment. Grandmaster 07:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

People, can't we just list all the language spellings?? --RaffiKojian 04:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC

Could someone give a neutral summary of the dispute here? Aucaman 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

About the origin of the name I guess.--Eupator 02:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is in a wider context than Nakhichevan. As you can see, the lead includes the name of the region in 4 languages. The dispute is whether it is correct to include all those names or only the name in the state language should be included. Also, if all applicable names should be listed in the lead, then there’s a dispute whether this principle should also be applied to Armenia, the territory of which was part of Ottoman Empire and Erivan Khanate. Grandmaster 04:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the official language is Azerbaijani, so what's the need for Turkish, Armenian, and Russsian translations? Aucaman 04:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See Danzig. Imo the origin of the name is a more important issue, so far nothing in regards to that is properly cited. --Eupator 04:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The origin does not matter. For many geographic locations in the world the origin of the name is not known or is disputed. This is about general principle, whether we should include the names in all languages for all locations in the region or not. Actually, the name of Nakhichevan sounds almost exactly the same in all languages, but it is written in the lead in various alphabets. The same principle should be applied to Yerevan (Irəvan, Ереван, Эривань, etc). Grandmaster 04:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, there’s no clear policy in this regard. There is a proposed Misplaced Pages policy Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names), but it is not binding. I don’t want to start an edit war by adding Azeri and Turkish names to the Armenian cities, because some editors oppose it, but I think there should be a general agreement on naming principles for the region to prevent edit conflicts. Grandmaster 04:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay so what do the various names have to do with the origin of the name anyway? What is the origin of the name? Aucaman 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There are different versions. Armenians think it is Armenian, Azeris think otherwise. The region changed hands so many times in the history that it is hard to keep track. The major influences were Persia, Turkey and Russia. Grandmaster 05:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No if you want to add in the names because of their origins then you probably have to create a new section that discusses the origin of the term. There, as you're describing the origin of the term, you can say which other names it's derived from. This is all assuming you have sources discussing the origin of the term. Do people agree to this? Aucaman 09:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The principle on which the names are added is not clear by the rules, because no official policy exists. The names are added here because of historical relevancy. Historically the region was part of various states, so the names historically used are listed in the lead. According to the proposed rules, you can add foreign language names:

#The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parenthesis: {name1, name2, name3, etc.}. Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e.: (name1 arch.). Foreign language names are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e.: (Armenian: name1, Belarusian: name2, Czech: name3). Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a names section immediately following the lead. In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced with the following text: (known also by several alternative names). Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.

I actually don’t object to all the foreign names being added to Nakhichevan as long as there’s no opposition to application of the same principle to Armenia. Grandmaster 09:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this was not even worth an RfC and I should have waited for the policy being accepted, but I just was recommended by admins to start an RfC to prevent edit wars here over the name inclusion. The debate about this principle is currently ongoing, so you may wish to actually post your opinion on the policy talk page as well. See Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Grandmaster 09:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am warning users that Grandmaster is attemptinG to POV push onces again I will oppose in the introduction of the policies you suggest and they will be opposed by the very large majority of the veterans that understand name conventions used in writting historic works. Words from other languages are only relevent for the etymology of the word, or the notability of the term for the period covered. And I repeat for the hundreth time, THIS IS WHY ARMENIAN NAMES ARE THERE WHILE AZERI OR TURKISH NAMES ARE NOT. THE ARMENIAN ALPHABET EXISTED DURING THAT PERIOD, THOSE NAMES WERE NOTABLE DURING THAT PERIOD INCLUDED IN WESTERN PUBLISHED MAPS OR PUBLICATIONS(IN SOME CASES EVEN IN THE OTTOMAN MILITARY MAP, WHILE SOME PLACES WERE EVEN CALLED BY THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE FROM THEIR ARMENIAN NAME). FOR GRANDMASTER TO JUSTIFY ADDING SUCH A TERM, FIRST HE SHALL PRESENT MAPS, PUBLISHED WORKS OF THAT PERIOD WHEN THOSE TERRITORIES WERE PART OF A TURKIC ADMINISTRATION, IN WHICH THERE WAS A DISTINCT TURKISH NAME, NOT PERSIAN NEITHER ARABIC. GRANDMASTER WANT TO USE A CURRENT AZERI OR TURKISH ALPHABET FOR A MODERN WORD NOT USED IN THAT PERIOD DURING WHICH SUCH TERRITORIES WERE UNDER A TURKIC ADMINISTRATION.

If a word from a foreign language has no values etymologically and neither was notable for the period the article covers, IT DOES NOT BELONG THERE, IT COULD BE CONGOLESE AND IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME RELEVENCY. But I don't expect Grandmaster to understand, My point was destinated to others. Fad (ix) 02:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No need to personalize this matter. I haven't had a chance to read Grandmaster's last response, but whatever it is, I doubt it alone requires such a harsh response. There are other places where you can discuss people's individual behavior. Not here. Aucaman 02:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That one attempt to have a policy here just to push his POV indeed is important enough to be harsh. Read his talk page, this issue has been discussed and I have tried to reasonate him. He refuse to adhere to the guidlines on name conventions and now he even suggest to have another policy. My capitalization of the letters might be harsh, but having repeated it after him keeping blind ear, such a harsh warning was an option. Fad (ix) 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Fadix, you are just a cry baby. You have personal issues with me and follow me to every page I contribute to tell everybody how bad I am. Not an adult behavior. I did this RfC just because I was suggested to do so by the admin Golbez to prevent possible edit wars. See my talk page, and stop crying. Grandmaster 05:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

À mon avis, exposing a deceitful POV-pusher does not a cry baby make. Hakob 06:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggested the RfC because this is a useful question - what languages do we include for a placename? Stop painting it as a POV and make a civil argument. --Golbez 18:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Golbez, I actually think that he is indeed a POV pusher, in those few last days I have lost patience with him and for a reason. Using common sense it is pretty easy what to include, name conventions should be the same that are used in historical works. Grandmaster while he calls me a cry baby, is actually saying: "mon, mom, he has candy, I want it too." Up to now every accusations I placed on him he returned them on me, like he is calling me a cry baby here few days after I called him just that. I have tried to reasonate him in a number of issues, but he seperate users here, one side his 'friends' the other his 'opponments.' He finger people and consider them as his oponment according to their ethnicity he has been doing this from the beggining and I told him to stop, he hasn't just yesterday some guys I don't know about became my 'friends.' He has used double standard, he has been hypocrith all along and when someone lose patience he than wonder why things becomes personal. First it started with the Karabakh entry, according to name conventions and notability of terms, the general rules is that Karabakh is an Armenian enclave within Azerbaijan. Not only it being an enclave is recognized in notable published books, but it yields results in google more than the words he find nothing wrong including as an also known, not only this, while his 'also knowns' are not notable in published works he consider them notable but remove the term enclave because he establish it as untrue even though Misplaced Pages policies are clear that Misplaced Pages articles are not original research and things are presented as they are presented and not as you believe as true or not. I said OK, it doesn't worth fighting for a word. Then, it happened again in the Khojali massacre article, he will be using one book to claim something to be true, while he would refuse references found in various works I have cited on the bases that they are untrue, again against Misplaced Pages policies. This guy believe that google can be used as sole way to establish the notability of something and that no matter if those terms are not notable in publish peer-reviewed journals or books.

Lately, Iranian Azerbaijan and the famous 'South Azerbaijan' claimed to be an also known, I have quoted him a guideline on name conventions, specifically advising to not use such words that may be misinterprated. When someone say to me 'South Canada,' 'South France,' 'South Syria'... the first thing that comes to my mind is the South of those countries, for the very, very large majority of people South Azerbaijan is the South of the republic of Azerbaijan. This term can simply not be considered as an also known for a pieces that is the North of a recognized state. The guy has no problem using such terms which are in conflict with a guidline, when on the other hand, he delete a word from another entry about a disputed territory, when unlike his term is really notable and used in the academia. To justify his position he uses google number of results. 'Western Armenia' gives millions of results on google and is notable, you will find it in hundreds of published works and historic maps, but do you find me adding this in the entry about Anatolia and claim it to be an 'also known' ? I won't because it is against a guidline, when someone read this, it mislead that person to believe that Anatolia is in the West of the republic of Armenia. If you were there, and I believe you were there during the conflicts and protests over terms regarding the geographic area which is often called Kurdistan, Kurdistan does not exist as a state, so people can not mistake 'North Kurdistan' etc., but those terms were still opposed over more prefered terms, and now go read the entries about 'Kurdistan.' Here is what become of the entry Northern Kurdistan and Southern Kurdistan. They were redirected and do you see any also known? Yet, those terms were yet much more notable than the terms 'South Azerbaijan' and just to point out again that there is no Kurdistan so people can not mistake are get mislead. But NOOOOOOO!!! Grandmaster won't even listen, when something fit his position, one book is enough, but he will be removing something that one will find in hundreds of publications.

That's not all, now not only does Grandmaster not adhere to some of the policies and guidlines but now he is crying telling us why if some Armenian terms are used in articles about lands in Turkey or Azerbaijan the contrary should not be the cases. Here too, I have tried to reasonate him, but being his 'opponment' as an Armenian I don't expect being considered by him as much if a Wikipedian than anyone else. This is why he will still keep considering me yet another Armenian editor, or those that I have no idea of, being those 'friends' of mine.

Golbez, what Grandmaster is requesting is to have Turkish and Azeris term in terriroties now being part of Armenia, when neither those territories have been called with Turkish names when they had been under any rules that might be considered as Turkic. A foreign name inclusion should be justified. I can not just add the Chinese name for Canada with Chinese characters in its lead. When Armenian names have a place, it is because either the term has Armenian etymology, either the period covered in the article the place was called with its Armenian name. What Grandmaster want to do is to incorporate Turkish or Azeris term, when those terms are either modern, written by a modern alphabet which didn't even existed during the periods when those territories were under a Turkic rule or that even during any Turkic rule those places were not called by any Turkish name. Foreign prunciations are important because they have historic values, so when I decide to search what that territory was called during a period I could find sources reffering to it. What is the relevency to just add foreign words when they have no historic, ethymologic values and like this was not enough those territories are even not part of a 'Turkic' country. Kahramanmaraş, what was it called before? 'Marash' this has a historic value, because before 1923, in maps it was called such and from the Armenian pronounciations and ethymology, go search if you find it was called else, I can name various such examples. But what Grandmaster is requesting is simply adding Turkish terms that have not historic values. Why not adding Congolese too, since we are at it? With a little common sense and much less POV pushing mentality, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure why Armenian terms are used sometimes for some localities. Fad (ix) 19:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There are long paragraphs here but I'm not in a mood to read them. I just came here to say an RfC is supposed to be a neutral endeavor, and therefore, should be treated as such.

However, I disagree strongly with how the RfC was worded. It's stilting the question, and not portrayed anywhere near a neutral fashion. It's confrontational, not advisory, and I suggest it be withdrawn and replaced with, simply: "What should the guidelines be for adding names in other nearby languages to cities and places that have been historically or culturally influenced by such?" Danzig/Gdansk is a possible source for previous debate on this, though this is a bit of a different situation. --Golbez 19:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

That was the context of the discussion here. Maybe the wording was not the best, but I noticed a little late that this issue is actually being discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). So maybe we should move this issue there and ask those who work on the policy to take this issue into account as well? Grandmaster 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As for Fadix, I’m not going to read his endless rants either, as I understand, they are not about the issue in question, but about me. I just would like to draw his attention to Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. If he’s not gonna stop bringing up my name every time he posts something in the talk page, I will have to take appropriate measures in accordance with the rules. Grandmaster 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to be respected respect others and stop lying about them. My above 'rant' as you call it IS about this issue and you know it, all are about the name convention and the guidelines concerning about them which you have not respected and want other parallel policies to abuse Misplaced Pages. As for no personal attacks, you haven't respected them either and have abused much other policy and guidelines you refuse to adhere to, and some very importants. You still refuse to accept that we are part of a community and are not 'co' and 'friends by ethnicity' 'another Armenian editor' 'my opponments' etc. I have requested you to stop polarising and dividing people in camps, and you still refuse to adhere to Wikipedias principles and still just yestday and today have still divided people as if there exist ghettos in Misplaced Pages, and I wasn't the only that have told you to stop considering others as your opponments basing yourself on their ethnicity. I judge people on their conduct and do not dump them in a category, and this was the simplest thing I requested from your part, but still you refuse to adhere to. I refuse to respect someone who refuse to respect me just because I happen to be in a social construct you consider as enemy. I consider you as a Wikipedian as equal as anyone else, and I request the same from your part. Fad (ix) 20:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You’ve been warned, Fadix. If you irrelevantly bring my name up again and start personal attacks, I’m going to refer it to third parties. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Grandmaster 21:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm shacking. Fad (ix) 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How unfortunate. Grandmaster I dont think thats fadix's style. He did thretened Arbcom to take retalotary action against me if they did not shake me off of the Armenian Genocide article, he would do it himself. I for one had enough of his constant personal attacks.

At a point he did even acused me of being a sockpuppet/puppeteer. Which he did apologised, but I dont see a learning curve.

--Cool Cat 21:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Er? What is the relevency of those? That Arbcom cases has found your implications in that article distruptive, as for the sock you have already accused me of being the sock of at least five other users requesting checkusers and you never appologised for those, so you are very badly placed to point to that, and I was partially right about the socks, since it was finally a sock of another user. Besides even Tony suspected you. But what does your intrusion has to do with the dispute here? Do you have any proposition? Since you are here and that the dispute is about name conventions, do you agree with the term 'South Azerbaijan' ? Since afteral, were you not one of the most vocal trying to remove 'Northern Kurdistan' term? If you have anything to say regarding the dispute about foreign language terms or this article go ahead, else, I don't get what you are doing here. Fad (ix) 23:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I will get rid of Northern Kurdistan one way or another, not because of my pov but as per WP:NPOV and as per WP:NOT just like I have gotten rid of the PKK victims category. I am here as per WP:NPA and your complete disregard of it. Comment on content, not on the contributor was a coment I directed at you long ago. Since you are treating people with the same respect you showed me, I will return the favor. Hope you don't mind.

--Cool Cat 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't compare yourself with Grandmaster, while I am very harsh with him, I have hopes that he may become a user adhering with the guidlines and policies. As for Northern Kurdistan, that article has been redirected and is OK now. PKK victims category was a list and not encyclopedic it was easy to get rid of it because it had no place on Misplaced Pages. And claiming that you will get rid of it is offending and arrogant. You don't own Misplaced Pages. Fad (ix) 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh by the way Nakhichevan is a territory of Azerbaijan and hence has nothing to do with neither Turkey, Armenian Genocide, or the Kurds and hence my arbcom restrictions do not even apply. --Cool Cat 02:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, do you even know over what I and Grandmaster were debating over? Fad (ix) 02:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cool Cat. The argument here is not about Southern Azerbaijan as Fadix claims. The argument is that certain people inserted in the lead of this article the name of the region in Armenian, but at the same time resist any attempts to include Turkish and Azeri names for Armenian settlements. As for Fadix, anyone can see that most of his comments are directed against me and not dedicated to the subject in question. That’s clearly against the rules. Now I’m not interested in Fadix’s opinion, because I know it, but I would like to know what community thinks about this naming debate. Grandmaster 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster I find that to be most interesting and most distressing. So we name an Azerbaijani teritory strictly using armenian names... is that it? There is a wikipedia guideline for city names: Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions should be observed.

Fadix I do know what you are debating and it is another contributor. Comments such as "if you want to be respected respect others and stop lying about them" is very incivil and is not welcome at anywhere on wikipedia including userpages.

--Cool Cat 13:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what the lead of the article currently looks like:

The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic (Azerbaijani: Naxçıvan Muxtar Respublikası, Armenian: Նախիջեվան, Turkish: Nahcivan Özerk Cumhuriyeti, Russian: Нахичеванская Автономная Республика), known simply as Nakhichevan, Naxçivan, Nakhchivan or Nakhijevan, is an exclave of Azerbaijan.

I’m not sure that we need all those names there, on the other hand, I don’t mind as long as this principle is applied not only to Azerbaijan, but to Armenia as well. For example, their capital was part of Ottoman Empire and Iravan khanate for centuries, but still Fadix objects to inclusion of Turkish and Azeri versions of the name to the lead of the article about Yerevan, while he wants Armenian name here. Grandmaster 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gm, your historical knowledge of Armenia is is degrading. How long was Yerevan part of Ottoman Armenia?

Btw the Turkicized name of the city is included in the article for Yerevan so I don't know what are you crying about.

Erivan Khanate's muslim population consisted of Kurds and Persians mostly. Jean Chardin's description of the city is quite interesting.--Eupator 15:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter, as long as it was. Plus it was part of various Turkic states, such as Seljuks, Ildegizids, etc. And I did not see any foreign names written in foreign languages included in the lead for Yerevan same way as it is for Nakhichevan. But anyway, I think the best thing is to stop this RfC and move the discussion to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), because it is a part of a bigger discussion and there are no rules that require Armenian name to be included here, although there are no rules prohibiting it either. The new policy should take into account situations like this and clearly stipulate the reasons for inclusion of foreign names. As for population of Erivan khanate, it was predominantly Azeri-Turkic, and it was ruled by Azeri-Turkic Qajar dynasty, who also ruled Ganja and Shemakha and Persia in general. There was no significant ethnic Persian population in the Caucasus at that time, but many European sources referred to all Shia Moslems as Persians regardless of ethnicity. See Brochauz encyclopedia for the figures during Russian rule, even though Fadix hotly disputes them, we don’t do fact check according to rules. Grandmaster 16:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no way of proving that the muslims were not Persians and Kurds. How can it be ruled by "Azeri-Turkic" when there was no such thing as an Azeri? Azeris did not exist. Various turkic speakers dwelled in the Caucasus but there were no such people as Azeris. --Eupator 16:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

They were not called Azeris, but it does not mean they did not exist. Shia Turks living in the Caucasus were the same people who are called Azeris nowadays. Grandmaster 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a bald statement. By that token we can say well Armenians were not called Armenians prior to the 6th century BC but they are the same people. It was Persian territory and I don't see how you can prove that the muslims spoke Turkish and not Persian or Kurdish.--Eupator 17:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to use the same linguistic trick that was described by Thomas de Waal in his book called Black Garden. It is very popular in Armenia to play with names to deny the role of Azeri people in history of that country. See an excerpt from the chapter 5 - Yerevan: Mysteries of the East. De Waal describes how Armenians destroyed an Azeri mosque in Yerevan using a bulldozer, and then says:

That the Armenians could erase an Azerbaijani mosque inside their capital city was made easier by a linguistic sleight of hand: the Azerbaijanis of Armenia can be more easily written out of history because the name “Azeri” or “Azerbaijani” was not in common usage before the twentieth century. In the premodern era these people were generally referred to as “Tartars”, “Turks” or simply “Muslims”. Yet they were neither Persians nor Turks; they were Turkic-speaking Shiite subjects of Safavid dynasty of the Iranian Empire – in other words, the ancestors of people, whom we would now call “Azerbaijanis”. So when the Armenians refer to the “Persian mosque” in Yerevan, the name obscures the fact that most of the worshippers there, when it was built in the 1760s, would have been, in effect, Azerbaijanis.

Yet by the twentieth century the Azerbaijanis people, who had lived in Eastern Armenia for centuries, had become its silent guests, marginalized and discriminated against. The Armenians asserted their right to their homeland at the expense of these people. In 1918 – 1920, tens of thousands Azerbaijanis were expelled from Zangezur. In 1940s, tens of thousands more were deported to Azerbaijan to make way for incoming Armenian immigrants from Diaspora. The last cleansing, in 1988 – 1989, got rid of the rest. Grandmaster 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, you aren't addressing the subject the right way. It is not on this bases that Turkish names should be excluded. A foreign word in the lead should have etymology or historic validity. Any Turkified terms for places now part of the republic of Armenia are modernized from Persian or foreign languages. Any era when there was a considerable Turkic population, there never was any specific Turkic word for any town or cities. Even Yerevan, its Azer/Turkic term derives from Persian Erwan. While Armenian terms for those territories were already formed and written by an Armenian alphabet as well as notable in the periods they covered included in Western maps and publications. What Grandmaster is requesting is to have a foreign term which its prounciation and alphabet is modern. One can nopt do a projection into the past by introducing in this past a modernized word. Fad (ix) 17:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case Grandmaster must show us the name written in his language from that period, which he obviously cannot do.--Eupator 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Fadix, you are inventing the rules. There are no rules that stipulate the inclusion of foreign names to an article, so I don’t know what is the basis of your assumptions on the principles of foreign name inclusion. Inclusion of the Armenian name in this article is not based on any rule, and the principles should be observed for the whole region. And on unrelated note, this page desperately needs archiving. Grandmaster 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't require any rules. Why not adding the Chinese language word for Canada in the lead of the Canadian article? There was a Nakhichevan word, written with Armenian letters back in the period, with a distinct Armkenian spelling. While your requested inclusions have no historic neither etymologic values. If you can show a Turkish name used at that time for any land now part of Armenia, I will be the first that will add it. I am not using double standards, but simply common sense, and this golden rule is not only used by me. Fad (ix) 19:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It does need archiving. Where's Francis? :) --Eupator 18:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC, I think Misplaced Pages naming conventions are fairly clear, alternative names if significant should be included in the first line. See Medzhybizh as an example, there are several entries like this. So, broadly speaking, it is perfectly reasonable to include the Azerbaijani name of towns in Armenia on the first line, and vice versa. Mustafa Bevi 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Does not compare, Medzhybizh has a complext history with different languages and written in different ways with different alphabets in their respective periods. I do not oppose to include the term used by Muslims with the way it was called with the alphabets of that period. What I oppose is to use modern terms with modern alphabet of another nation which the land happen to not be part of that nation for the period in question. Doing what you suggest is equivalent as to adding the Chinese language term for Canada in the Canadian articles lead under the pretext that since there are over a billion Chinese the term is notable. Armenian terms have historic values, they were written by a specific alphabet with its distinctive prounciation. Its inclusion has historic value. The Turks were using the same alphabet as Persians and Arabs were using and it was written about the same way, the aleph was removed during a period by Ottomans (for 'Erwan') but this is about all and could be mentioned, I have no problem with that. Fad (ix) 18:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It actually does compare. Exactly the same situation. Alphabet has nothing to do with the name. Alphabets change over the time, and nobody insist on old Russian names being written using the old Russian alphabet that was in use in tsarist Russia. All Russian names, regardless of them being old or new, are written using modern Russian Cyrillic alphabet. As for the origin of the name, it is also irrelevant, the names have Turkish/Azeri spellings too, and the territory of modern Armenia has Turkish and Azeri history as well, and any attempts to deny it cannot be justified. Grandmaster 20:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you see modern Turkish there? http://en.wikipedia.org/Great_Khan

While the term is also Turkic, its original writting is conserved as how it is done in encyclopedic articles. And this like many other entries. Ottomans the original spellings are concerned before modern Turkish, in fact the last is modern Turkish, while the preceding is a transliteration of the original and this is because Turkey is considered by most to be the successor of the Ottoman Empire, had it been not, you would have no modern Turkish spelling. Modern Russian Cyrillic alphabet is Cyrillic alphabet, you have yet to compare both ways of writting them. Fad (ix) 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I see it here: Khan. Also the discussion is about geographic locations, not historical terms. Grandmaster 05:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Fad (ix) 06:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. It says "sometimes spelled as Xan, Han" but does not clarify by who. Xan is Azeri, Han is Turkish. And with regard to the Russian alphabet, if you decide to add a Russian name for Kars, which was part of the Russian empire before the revolution, would you write it as Карс or Карсъ? Grandmaster 12:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No, 'Xan' is a mongolian spelling too, you will find the 'Xan' in the list of Mongolian dynasties too. They have writen it in English to say how they are spelled. So again, I don't see modern Azeri in historic articles elsewhere. Show me. Fad (ix) 18:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This one is not a historical article, it is a geographical article. As for Xan, in Azeri it is read as Khan, and in English? Grandmaster 19:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Xan is there not because of an Azeris spelling but because it is often transliterated like this in English language. You can ask to those involved in the article. Fad (ix) 22:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here a proposition of resolution

The Armenian term as well as every other terms beside the Azeri be removed, a section about etymology be created.

This is what I propose, the other stories about Noah ark should be sourced, so I removed every other theories which are not sourced.

The city of Nakhichevan was mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naksuana and was said to be established in 4400 BCE. Naksuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water". Josephus refers also to this place from its translation in Greek for "the place of descent" in his Jewish Antiq. B.1 , C.8, 5. and writes: "The Armenians call this place the place of descent; for, the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day." The Armenians call it Նախիջեվան (Nakhichevan), Nakhichevan is formed by the union of two Armenian words Նախ (nakh), which means preceding everything/first and ichevan meaning descent to form Նախիջեվան (Nakhichevan), which is the Armenian word for the territory and is the etymology of the current term for the place. In Azeris, the 'i' is removed, while in English language the 'i' is preserved even though the place is now under Azeri administration. According to Armenian legends, Nakhichevan is the first Armenian city from which a descent of Noah, Hayk has gone to build the Armenian nation.

Fad (ix) 20:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We need to incorporate other versions of the name into the text as well. Some information was presented in the posting s above. So it should be something like this:

There are different versions of the etymology of the name of the region. The city of Nakhichevan was mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naksuana and was said to be established in 4400 BCE. Naksuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water". Josephus refers also to this place from its translation in Greek for "the place of descent" in his Jewish Antiq. B.1 , C.8, 5. and writes: "The Armenians call this place the place of descent; for, the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day." The Armenians call it Նախիջեվան (Nakhichevan), Nakhichevan is formed by the union of two Armenian words Նախ (nakh), which means preceding everything/first and ichevan meaning descent to form Նախիջեվան (Nakhichevan). Other historical sources mention it as “Nakhch” in pehlevi, and “Nashawa” in Arabic. The city name was presented as “Nakhch” in the pehlevi language on the coins minted in the name of Sasany emperor on VI century. In the Persian sources the city name was given as “Nakhjir.” Yagut Hemevi named the city “Nashawa”, Muhammed ibn Hindushah Nakhchivani and Hamdullah Gazvini named it “Naqshi-Jahan.” According to another version the word “Nakhchivan” is of Turkic origin and is a corrupted form of Nuh chikhan, meaning the place of Noah’s first landing. Grandmaster 05:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not sourced, what historic sources ever mention "Nakhch"???You say it is on the coin, I want to see that. Movses Khorenatsi in 6st century wrote 'Nakhichevan.'(which still shows that during the period you claim Nakch was used, the Armenians were calling it Nakhichevan) "Nashwana" in Arabic is very unlikely, "Nashwana" isen't even semitic proper. As for Persian, since they share common language encestry with Armenian, Nakh could have meant the same thing, it is to a Persian to confirm it. But this to be included you must source it. Josephus lived in the first century, and he do write that Armenians were calling it the place of descent, which they still call it. The story of Noah founded city and Hayk is a known Armenian legend which the Azerbaijani Academia of since appropriated itself and started forging some other versions of the place. A fact remain, the current name has a definition from the fusion of two words, and according to Josephus, the Armenians at least since the first century were calling it this way which means that Nakhichevan the way it is called today is etymologically Armenian. As for it to originate from Turkish, look dude, in the first century when Josephus lived, there was still no Islam, there was still no Turks living anywhere close to Nachikevan, but still the Armenians were calling it the Place of Descent, probably the name came in after the massive Jewish immigration in the Armenian Plateau. In any cases, all those names you provide are all to be found in google from some nationalistic articles. Buiding various verions to dissolve the origine of the name, its definition and etymology. Source what you claim, I sourced mine and Josephus is really notable.

Historically the place was known under different names. Nashawa is an Arabic one, and it is worth inclusion as any other. It is mentioned in a number of ancient sources, such as Arabian historian of 9th century ibn Hordadbeh. His work is available in online Russian library here in Russian translation. He mentions Nashawa, which according to him was under control of Byzantines before the Arabic conquest. The footnote of the editor explains that Nashawa is modern Nakhichevan.

Областями Арран, Джурзан и ас-Сисаджан владели хазары. Областями Дабил, Нашава, Сирадж, Баграванд, Хилат, Баджунайс владели византийцы.

There are numerous Iranian spellings, including the most popular one Nagshi jahan. The city and the region changed names many times, the current version of the name was chosen by Russians after they took over the region, probably they took it from Armenians, who served in Russian administration. English spelling came from Russian. Anyway, all the relevant versions of the name and its etymology should be included. Grandmaster 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We are at square one. The word sounds like Berber, the only Arabic word close to it means 'intense feeling' or something such, I don't see what Arabic word would have an aleph there after an elangeted 'ash...' without an 'hhh' spelling after, since you claim 9th century it should have been classical typically Koranic standart. I doubt that there is various source like you claim. You claim, but I want those sources, where are they? You copypast stuff without actually providing any references at all, you are comparing an original source dating back in the first century with some material copypasted from a site which represent allegedly how it was written in the 9th century by Arabs. Dude, even when Khorenatsi wrote, the official Arabic alphabet didn't even exist. For the etymology... Grandmaster, you are doing it again. There is still a location in Northern Armenia by the name 'Ishevan' Nakhichevan being the first Ishevan. The fact of the matter is, that the term is Armenian, every other words you come up with are hardly sourced and none are close to the way people call it, which is Nakhichevan, and the way it way called at least as far as the first century. Fad (ix) 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Point being, the current Azeri name is based on the Armenian name.--Eupator 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Azeri name is a bit different. In Azeri it is Nakhchivan, internationally accepted one is closer to that, but according to you even in Armenian it is spelled as Nakhijevan, so not exact match. Grandmaster 19:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The way Azeri spell it is a modified version to concord to Arabic/Persian scripts, the 'kh' is already elangated, I have hard time imaginating how a ي would have been compatible to the Nakhichevan. And no, it is not spelled in Armenian the way you claim it, it is in the middle tone of the j and ch, which is slightly different than the Turks spell it. So the way it is called in English and writen in the literature is the Armenian term. There is no way that one could claim that the etymology of the word is not Armenian Grandmaster. You still refuse to accept even though there are references of it called that way as far as the first century, during the same time that the Greek term you refered existed, both are clearly different, so the Armenian term could not have been a modification of the Greek term, neither that the current term could have come in anyway from any other words. All the other references you provided are centuries after Josephus text, and are yet to be documented, even if they were, they can not be considered to be the etymology of the word, but rather part of the history of Nakhichevan. This word means something in Armenian, not in some weird modified for but AS IS, and it means what it meant during Josephus time as he related to it. Fad (ix) 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Arabic name, we don’t have to fact check, as long as a reliable source says that Arabs called it Nashawa or an-Nashawa, it is enough. And I’m not saying that the current name originates from the Arabic one, the Arabic name most probably is a corrupted form of the Greek Naksuana, as Arabs captured the region from Byzantines. As I said, the region changed its name many times, and we need to mention all important ones. In Farsi the region is called Nakhjavan, see the info from the website of Iranian embassy about East Azerbaijan:

the province and Iran are connected to Nakhjavan, Irevan, Tablisi

Btw, note how they spell the name of Armenian capital. The word Nakhjavan means something in Farsi, but I don’t know exactly what. We need to ask Farsi speakers. One professor of apparently Iranian origin claims that both Nakhjavan and Iravan are Persian names, even though he’s not any good in geography.

Another Iranian name for the region is Naghsh-e-Jahan (image of the world or something like that, probably also because of Noah legends). It is hard to say which name was the original one, Persian, Greek or Armenian, but apparently different people took it from each other, but adapted it to their language and gave it their own meaning. And finally, Armenian transliteration (Nakhijevan) was included in the article by Eupator, I thought he was a native Armenian speaker. Grandmaster 17:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You are refusing to listen Grandmaster, in Arabic/Persian script short voyels are left down, this is one of the most difficult thing to learn how to read Arabic/Persian script, and one of my major difficulty, you will still find native Arabs having this difficulty themselves. Every consonans(they are rather labial, dental etc., but I am trying to simplify things here) on the middle tone that have elongated prounciation eat a short voyel. You can ask any Arabic speaking person, and there are many in Misplaced Pages. The 'i' in Nakhichevan follows a long consonance, the 'i' is simply eaten. When writting it in Farsi, it just disapear because placing it there will elongate it while in this case it should be read as short. When it is read by Arabs or Persians from the Arabic script, the 'kh' is not read the way it is read in Azeri/Turkic, it is elongated and has an end tone that derrives a little bit on the 'i' but Turkic language doesn't provide any such possibility, in fact this was one of the things that was changed when Ataturk brought the modernization of the Turkish language, such written rules of Ottoman Turkish were left down in modern Turkish. The missing 'i' in Azeri or Turkish should in no way be confounded with a missing 'i' in Farsi. If you don't believe me ask any Persian to write Nakhichevan with an 'i' to be spelled in short voyel following an elogated 'kh...' This is why in Arabic written scripts words from foreign language get their short voyels eaten.

Now comming to the etymology. Grandmaster, you see again here, how there is no way to come up with a solution with you. I have provided Josephus who lived in the first century. The story of Noah in Nakhichevan was believed by Armenians at least since the first century, the work I have refered in El_C talkpage suggest that it was brought in by Jewish ressetlement in the Armenian plateau, and we know that there was a very considerable Jewish population in Nakhichevan until the years 360-370, when during the Persian invasion 18,000 Jewish and 2,000 Armenian families were kicked out from there. As Faustus discribes. You can find this from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1902) entry on Armenia, and it is available on the web too. Britannica 1911 as well as the current Britannica says nothing about other peoples legend on Noah, but refer to the Armenians. You can not build a notability out of something which is not to equilibrate a notable position. And Ishevan has a long story, this is why descent later meant as a moorning place in the memory of descents a place that people rest and now is even used as a resting place an 'inn.' You claim it means something in Farsi, but yet, you haven't provided anything, sourced this. You just claim. Is it so hard to admit that Nakhichevan is recognized as an Armenian name? Also, you use the similarities of Armenian with Persian in prounciation or terminaison. NO WONDER, both are in the same family languages, in the beggining and perhaps even on the middle of the last century, language specialists were still thinking that Armenian is a Persian dialect because of very close similarities in many words. The fact remains that that the claims of it to have anything to do with Noah is recognized as being an Armenian legend. Britannica, Josephus and various sources place this. Until Nakhichevan was given to Azerbaijan, it had a place where people came to moorn and rest on what they considered as the place of their descent. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia it provides notable position, not some fringe build by some wackos. Do you have any published material? I could care less of all the theories one can find from whatever nationalist site. Fad (ix) 17:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, with regard to the Arabic name all the linguistic talks are useless, that’s your original research. It is enough that the name is mentioned in an authoritative source. I cited a medieval geographer Ibn Khordadbeh, who mentions Nashawa in his Book of Roads and Kingdoms (al-Kitab al-Masalik w’al-Mamalik). I found that book in a Russian translation, and as far as I know it’s not available in English online, but you can look for it in any language you want. Also here’s another Arabian chronicle by ibn al Fakikh in Russian translation, and it was released by the Academy of Sciences of Armenian SSR in 1979. It also mentions Nashawa (Nakhichevan). And here’s another Russian academic source that says that Arabs called Nakhichevan Nashawa. Нашава (так арабы именовали Нахичевань) You are trying to get included in the article only one version and leave out all others, which is not correct by the rules. Grandmaster 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess now, people will understand why I get angered everytime we start debating. I will repeat it AGAIN! Etymology MEANS from where the word originate, that others called it something else IS NOT etymology, it must be the origine of the word. And also go read the policies and guildines about what is qualified as original research. Or better go read in the entry about Arabic alphabet and its reference to short voyels and see if indeed it is original research. I was not talking about Nashawa, Nashwa is an Arabic word, it is the closest word, it means an intense feeling of esctase, while Nashawa sounds berber because of the aleph placed there unusualy, but yeh, this is irrelevent. The point here is what is the etymology of the word Nakhichevan, THE WORD Nakhichevan. Nakhichevan is recognized as an Armenian word, this like it or not. This word existed before every sources you have provided, you can not claim that a word which is more recent(the Arabic one) than another is the etymology of a word when that other happens to be the word it is called now. The term Nakhichevan already existed when the Arabs were supposedly calling it the way you claim they were calling it. You then bring a supposed way it was called in Farsi without the 'i' but it IS a writen rule in Arabic alphabet that short voyels are eaten and in Arabic script it is not spelled as if is was totally voyel free as it is now spelled in Turkic languages, only in Azeri-Turkish or perhaps other Turkic languages there is two short consonans repeated abrutly like this, Ottoman Turkish on the other hand did not spell it like it is now spelled in Turkic, this is written rules, like I told you you can ask those writting in Arabic script, this is about how words are spelled and alphabets phonetic, it is not original research. That it is an Armenian word is a notable position, that it means anything in any other language isen't substanciated in any notable work. And the most ridiculous is those nationalist sites suggesting Noah being part of the word and suggesting any etymology there. This is ridiculous, Islam didn't even exist during that period, and neither the Armenians en mass have converted to Christianity, the story of Ararat and Nakhichevan was brought by Jewish settlers in Nakhichevan, from whom the Armenians barrowed that story and later after converting adapted it to their own legends. Either you source every of your claims, or those you can't source won't go there. And you even deleted the information about the Armenian story of Noah and Hayk, this is more notable than what you want to include. Can you find any notable work that support the thesis that the word as is means anything in any other language than Armenian? Can you? If you can source it, if not, don't place a claim you can not support. FACT: Josephus in the frist century refers to Nakhichevan and say Armenians were calling it the first place of the descent, and the story was repeated in Khoernatsi writtings in the 6st century. I have source by using another work of the 19nt century. The story about Armenians belief on Noah and his link with Nakhichevan not only is on Britannica 1911, but it is also there in the current issues of Britannica. Those are recognized notable position, and you want to dissolve this by introducing some fringe positions because it happens that you have still a problem admitting that the notable position is that Nakhochevan is an Armenian term, and that it means something in Armenian. This is not how it works. Fad (ix) 22:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder do you actually read what I write or you just argue for the argument’s sake? When did I say that the name Nakhichevan originated from the Arabic name of the region? I repeat my phrase from the above post: I’m not saying that the current name originates from the Arabic one, the Arabic name most probably is a corrupted form of the Greek Naxuana, as Arabs captured the region from Byzantines. As I said, the region changed its name many times, and we need to mention all important ones. I just said that the Arabic name should be mentioned in the article as one of the historical names of the place, but it is not an original name, it is probably just the way Arabs transcribed Naxuana after they captured the region from the Byzantines. As for etymology, there are 3 main versions that in my opinion should be included. 1. Greek – Naxuana. 2. Armenian – Nakhichevan. 3. Iranian – Nakhjavan, Naghsh-e-Jahan. Now, with regard to the name of Naghsh-e-Jahan, it is mentioned in a number of sources. For example, Hamdollah Mostowfi (Qazvini), 14th century historian, describing Nakhchivan in his book Nozhat al-Gholub says that it is a beautiful place, and is called Naghsh-e-Jahan. I found it in Russian online library, so it is in Russian:

Нахчиванский туман состоит из пяти городов. НАХЧИВАН относится к четвертому климату. Его долгота 80°55', а широта 33°40'. Город был возведен Бахрамом Чубином. Это прекрасное место, именуемое «Картиной мира» (Накш-и джахан). Grandmaster 11:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster, you are repeating what I have asked you(if you even read what I wrote). Let me repeat it again, ETHYMOLOGY!!!! ETHYMOLOGY MEANS from WHERE the word originate from!!!! In Iranian it is not phonetically Nakhchevan, IT IS ARABIC WRITEN RULES, For hell sake, stop pushing your POV, go ask any Iranian what happen to a short voyel when they write it? Look dude, read some book about Ataturks modernization of the Turkish alphabet and the rules that were left down. The Term in Persian is not an etymology, they are using the Armenian term, WHICH MEANS SOMETHING. It is like presenting the way the English write it and just because they write it Nakhichevan presenting it as etymology. Fad (ix) 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to barge in but how is the Greek etymology the main one and the Armenian the second when Josephus is an earlier source than Ptolemy? Basically the first recorded name in history of the region is Armenian that is sill used today and has the same meaning.--Eupator 12:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm near to be done with Grandmaster, if some still doubted that he is a POV pusher, now it has been confirmed and assuming good faith with him would be naive. Fad (ix) 17:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, can you actually read? I understand that you want Armenian to be the only version in the text, but it is not gonna work that way. Another version is that Persian Nakhjavan is a distorted Naghsh-e-Jahan (image of the world). What’s your problem with that? It should be included as well. You simply cannot accept the facts that don’t match your POV. Grandmaster 18:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, seems that you are up to Coolcat trick, using all my accusations against you back to me as if this will stick. YOU ARE WRONG, PERSIANS DO NOT SPELL IT THE WAY YOU CLAIM THEY SPELL IT, SHOULD I CAP UP WHAT I WRITE SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND IT. THE 'I' REMOVED IN PERSIAN ADHERES TO WRITTING RULES OF REMOVING A SHORT VOYEL, HOW MANY TIMES AM I SUPPOSED TO REPEAT THIS TO YOU. GO ASK ANY ARAB OR PERSIANS ABOUT THE RULES ON SHORT VOYEL. The Persian Nakhchevan is not pronounced Nakhchevan in English, it is not because the Persians call it this way that it means that it is an etymology. The term Yogurt has a Turkic etymology, it is not because others have taken the word and modified it with different versions that it makes those words as etymology, the etymology is the Turkic word. The point, and the WHOLE point is that Nakhichevan IS an Armenian word, it means something in Armenian AS IS!!! and since Josephus period at the very least. Now the place IS called Nakhichevan, and this AS IS means something and IS considered as an Armenian word, that others like Persians have called it this with a slight variation more to do with written rules of classical Arabic doesn't mean that those are etymology candidates.

Checking the Arabic alphabet entry today, I was pleased to see that what I have been trying to tell you is there. I WILL KISS the person that has added this information. Let me quote from it: The Arabic alphabet is an "impure" abjad—short vowels are not written, though long ones are—so the reader must know the language in order to restore the vowels. THIS WAS WHAT I TRIED TO MAKE YOU UNDERSTAND WHICH YOU STILL REFUSED TO, IGNORING WHAT I HAVE BEEN WRITING TO YOU. THE MISSING 'I' IN THE PERSIAN NAKHJAVAN IS NOT TO BE REPLICATED IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. The 'kh' is spelled with a long prounciation which slightly derives on its ending as if there was a voyel. This IS NOT the cases with the Turkish alphabet. And I REPEAT, this was one of the things that have been changed with the language modernization under Ataturk rules. The fact is that the way the Azeris write it, the eaten voyel has just disapeared because they took the word from the way it was writen in Arabic script and haven't restituted the voyel. This is not the only example, there still are some Turkish words with Arabic or Persian etymology in which short voyels have just disapeared without restituting them.

Here the question IS, who called it Nakhichevan first, does it mean anything AS IS, what is the etymology of the current WORD!!! Any other names called are part of the history of that place but are not part of the etymology of the current word 'Nakhichevan' and claiming they are is simply original research. Now, stop for once trying to push you POV, and accept what is notable. Fad (ix) 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, you are wasting too much talk page space. Armenian version is included in my proposal, no need to discuss it. Greek version is also there. Iranian should be included as well. It is as good as any other. I don’t care about alphabet and stuff, that’s your original research, it is not written anywhere in an authoritative source. If you are including the Greek name, why can’t you include the Iranian name that was mentioned in many historical chronicles? Your position is obviously a POV push, and still you are accusing me of the same. Grandmaster 20:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here’s my new proposal, I think it makes sense to present the information as follows:

Nakhichevan is considered one of the oldest inhabited areas in human history. The city of Nakhichevan was mentioned in Ptolemy's "Geography" as Naxuana and was said to be established in 4400 BCE. Naxuana is ancient Greek for "the land of sweet water". Josephus refers also to this place from its translation in Greek for "the place of descent" in his Jewish Antiq. B.1 , C.8, 5. and writes: "The Armenians call this place the place of descent; for, the ark being saved in that place, its remains are shown there by the inhabitants to this day." The Armenians call it Նախիջեվան (Nakhichevan), which is formed by the union of two words Նախ (nakh), which means “preceding everything/first” and ichevan meaning “descent”. Iranian sources called it Nakhjavan or Naghsh-e-Jahan (image of the world), and Arabic sources mentioned it as Nashawa. Grandmaster 20:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gm, original research and personal theories are not allowed in Misplaced Pages. We list sources in chronological order.--Eupator 20:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Chronology is only important for him when it support his position. A rule of tumbs will tell us that etymology refers to from where the actual word originate from. But I guess Grandmaster can't digest the fact that it origjnate from Armenians, as well as the legends about Noah which were recycled from Jewish settlers. Fad (ix) 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And you are wasting Misplaced Pages's space with your POV pushing. Naghsh-e-Jahan being Nakhichevan is simply a fabrication from Azeri nationalists. Naghsh-e-Jahan is a place in Meydan-e Emam. 'Naghsh-e Jahan' is the place of the Shah in the Esfahan province, also next to where the Armenians were relocated in the new Julfa. When has Nakhichevan ever been refered by Persians as Naghsh-e-Jahan? Provide any sources that Persians were calling Nakhichevan anything close to the word Nakhichevan before 1588-89 when the Persians siezed it. And here I am even not requesting something preceding the settling of the Frater Unitores, those Catholics under the Dominican order in the fourteenth century who also refered to it. You weren't even able to place a source preceding Khorenatsi reference to Nakhichevan, but you aren't even able to place a source preceding 1588-89 too mentioning anything close to the word Nakhichevan. Also, what is this BS? Nakhichevan is considered one of the oldest inhabited areas in human history. Who considers this? This is simply a myth, a legend, which again originate from Armenian legends which have been recycled by Azeris. The last time I have checked, the major theory about humanity is the 'Out of Africa' which support the thesis that the oldest living humans were living in Africa and that it took tens of thousands of years before they started emigrating in the North. If you aren't able to source any word that sounds like 'Nakhichevan' live it at that and stop with this original research. What is laughable that you are even the one accusing me of original research. Give me a brake. True, the Persians were calling it close to Nakhchevan, like we call Yogourt, Yogourt... it is not because we call it Yogourt in English that it's history of how it was called by various people is important. What is important is that it was first reffered as such by Turkic people. Who first refered it as Nakhichevan? Can you find any sources preceding Josephus, you can't even find something preceding Khorenatsi reference to 'Nakhichevan.' Also, you haven't answered me when I have asked you why you have deleted the Armenian legend about Noah. Josephus is the first reference, and the Armenian term should respect this chronology and be first. Fad (ix) 22:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your above posting is just another proof that you don’t read what other people write and you just push your POV no matter what. You say: When has Nakhichevan ever been refered by Persians as Naghsh-e-Jahan? Provide any sources that Persians were calling Nakhichevan anything close to the word Nakhichevan before 1588-89 when the Persians siezed it.

I just did that. I cited Hamdullah Qazvini, 14th century historian, who referred to Nakhichevan as 'Naghsh-e Jahan'. But you did not even read what I wrote, did you?

As for the first line of my proposal, I’m not insisting on that, but since the legend associates the area with Noah, it’s quite an acceptable statement. I should really doubt now your ability or desire to understand written texts. One of the oldest does not mean the oldest. There’s a difference. Human race may originate from Africa, but Nakhichevan can still be one of the oldest inhabited places on earth along with many others. If you are not happy with that, let’s leave it out, but no need to start pointless arguments. And it was you, Fadix, who mentioned Ptolemy first, see the first posting in this section. What’s wrong with you, people? And Noah legend is included in the etymology, but what Hayk has got to do with the name? OK, as I see, the compromise is not working out, so let’s forget about it. I proposed to summarize ALL existing historical names and etymologies in a separate paragraph, but since you want to include only one version a compromise is not possible. Let’s get back to principles of inclusion of foreign names to an article. Grandmaster 09:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't take me for an idiot, Mr. POV pusher, you can redirect this accusation against me by thinking it'll stick as much as you want, but this isen't the way it works. Hamdullah Qazvi never reffered to it as Naghsh-e jahan, this place still exist and is in Iran as I tried to print in your head. He reffered Nakhichevan as Nakw-e-dzhakhan, which means 'picture of peace' or rather 'image of rest' the word picture has the same etymology in both Armenian and Persian, in fact the way it is written there seems also an Armenian word too, and he doesn't say it is in Persian. The word World isen't even there..., you are mixing this with Naghsh-e jahan which again IS ANOTHER PLACE. The story of it being a resting place is notably recognized as an Armenian legend and this source you provide doesn't support that the etymology of the current word is Persian, again there is a difference between Nakw-e-dzhakhan and Nakhichevan. The Greak name for the place as 'place of descent' was Apobahtayreon (see for example, Whiston work reffering to it). Also, to suppose that any other persons reffered to it as Noah cite, they should first suppose that the montain he supposedly landed on was Ararat, this can't be the cases, because in 13-14 century when Hamdullah Qazvi wrote his pieces, there was still many candidates as the mountain of Noah, up to 13th century the candidate was a Gordyene mountain(in the Armenian cases, it was more like 10nt century), more particularly the so-called Kurdish mountain, which even many Armenians during that period were reffering to as Noah mountain. There was two major competing versions, and for the Persians still, neither could have been considered that. So all your myths about Noah during those periods are simply original research, and your incorporation of the word 'World' simply a forgery. Heinrich Hubschmann in his major book published 1901, write that there were two competing etymologies for Nakhichevan and both were Armenian etymologically. The first means the 'place of decent' the other which according to him might have been the original name before the Armenians incorporated the belief about Noah, it meant 'the town of Nakhk,' avan meaning town in Armenian('Nakhkavan'). That we take either flavours, researching publications, it is clear that the term Nakhichevan is considered as etymologically Armenian. Here more reading about the place: , .

Here, you will find a book online about the Noah's Flood at alislam.org by Munir Ahmed Khan . Read the section about Nakhichevan, as he document, both(rather he present three) flaviors are all of Armenian origine, the Noah story in Nakhichevan as an Armenian legend. I don't see any other proposition. Do you see any? Read the section on the etymology of the word. Do you see any of those propositions which are not Armenian? It is even accepted by Muslims, so STOP pushing your POV Grandmaster.

One of the first inhabitated place is simply according to Biblical legends, before humans moved North they lived tens of thousands(perhaps, hundreds of thousands) of years in Africa, making of any other places they might have lived as far from being one of the oldest. As for Hayk story, the Armenian legends want him to be Japheth (Noah's son) son who lived in Nakhichevan, it is relevent to the etymology of the word as Armenians consider Hayk as being their descent, and the place of descent as being an Armenian legend. You had no problem with the legend about Albanians descendent of Noah, which also originated from Armenian legends. Fad (ix) 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, stop wasting my time. You say: He reffered Nakhichevan as Nakw-e-dzhakhan, which means 'picture of peace' or rather 'image of rest' the word picture has the same etymology in both Armenian and Persian, in fact the way it is written there seems also an Armenian word too, and he doesn't say it is in Persian. The word World isen't even there..., you are mixing this with Naghsh-e jahan which again IS ANOTHER PLACE.

As an Arabic speaker you should know that “jahan” or “dzhakan” means world. That word exists even in Azeri language, it is Arabic, if I’m not wrong. So it is not picture of peace, it is picture of the world. But whatever it is, it is still a different etymology. And also, this is not the only Persian source that refers to it as Naghsh-e jahan, it’s just the one I could find online. It is not unusual when there are many places with the same name. See Shirvan, for example. When I proposed a compromise, I said: This could have been dealt with in a separate section, where all appropriate variations and explanations of etymology could be collected. So this is what we needed to do: include all the names that this area historically had and their etymology when applicable. What you are trying to do is include only Armenian name and leave out all others. It’s obvious that you are pushing your nationalist POV, otherwise why would you reject inclusion of other names? And don’t start telling me that the Armenian is the only correct one, I never objected to inclusion of the Armenian etymology, but since the place was known in the history under names other than Nakhichevan all those names and their etymologies should also be included. Grandmaster 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You are really behind belief. First, Jahan is probably ethymologically Persian and indeed it means World, on the other hand dzhakhan (more exactly Idzhahkhwan) is another old word(probably not used anymore) and it means peace or rest. Hamdullah Qazvi ALSO TRANSLATE IT as peace, which clearly indicate that he is using the word which also Armenians use and translate. You are mixing two different places, Naghsh-e jahan which is now in Iran, and indeed it contains the word world, and Hamdullah Qazvi's Nakw-e-dzhakhan which contains dzhakhan which is a derivates of Idsheuan(guess what, the short voyel is missing AGAIN in the Persian transliteration), writen back the the 5ft century by Khorenatsi which also means rest/peace and is used also to mean descent. In short, Hamdullah Qazvi isen't saying that the term is in Persian, he is saying what it is called and what it means. I have provided PUBLISHED materials and all notable works studying the etymology of the word gives it as Armenian, on the other hand, all the materials you have provided which most proposition are unsourced, when they are doesn't support what you claim. Since most published data place the word as Armenian, and that the first time any Nakhichevan was refered to, was reffered by Armenians and in Armenian publications, it is clear that the most notable position is that it is indeed an Armenian word, and the story about Noah in Nakhichevan is recognized beyond Azeri nationalist circles as an Armenian legend. This is really ridiculous Grandmaster, we are here fighting for a word, just because you are refusing to admit that it is a word recognized as etymologically Armenian. Also, I have never requested that only the Armenian term should remain, what I have requested is to place the correct etymology of the word Nakhichevan (which even Azeris now call it that minus the 'i') and the legend behind it. Is it now not called Nakhichevan? YES OR NOT! Does etymology not mean the source of the word? YES! OR NOT!? Is the claim that it is not etymologically Armenian not a fringe, YES OR NOT? For once stop feeling first being Azeris when you edit articles, but simply a Wikipedian. Can you do that? Fad (ix) 20:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know how you know how Qazvini translates it, but in the Russian edition of his book the exact phrase about Nakhichevan is translated as follows: This is a beautiful place, called “image of the world” (Naghsh-e jahan). So it is clear that he refers to this place by that name. I don’t understand why you cannot digest the idea that the place had other names and some of those names had their etymology. Again, I never resisted to inclusion of Armenian etymology, but it is you who cannot accept any idea that the place could historically have names other than Nakhichevan. It is this phrase that you are fighting against: Iranian sources called it Nakhjavan or Naghsh-e-Jahan (image of the world), and Arabic sources mentioned it as Nashawa. It is well sourced and verifiable, but still it is you who cannot be simply a wikipedian and push only for Armenian version and nothing else. Grandmaster 05:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NO! Stop fooling me, it is not because I don't understand Russian that it means that I can't use a translator. The translator says Мира means peace, while мир means world, it is translated as: This is a beautiful place, called “image of peace.” (Nakw-e dzhakhan). And nowhere does he say that it's Persian etymologically.

I like when you use digest,you are like a kid playing the ball game and redirecting everything I accuse you of and even do it literaly, I can't say you are as cute as Coolcat when you do it, but somehow... Read page 41 footnote 16 , do you see any other etymology? No, it isen't in the official translation of Josephus, neither in the footnote. I have provided you an online book from an Islamic site, do you see any other etymology beside the three Armenian versions he provides? Presenting what else the city is called is not to present the etymology of the word Nakhichevan. Now that you can't deny its Armenian origine, you are trying to twist things by passing foreign words as etymologically valide even though they were written over 800 years AFTER Khorenatsi 'Nakhichevan' and over a millenium after Josephus, besides, it is relevant enought to know that the word Nakhichevan the way it is written and sounds now is still more closer to Khorenatsi prounciation than Hamdullah Qazvi's one, when we take into account and transfer the prounciation of old Grabar, Khorenatsi word is about identical to the word 'Nakhichevan' it was written before Islam and before the Persians were using the Arabic alphabet. But that you have engaged in editing this article and once haven't thought of adding the official notable position of the word but rather had no problem with nationalistic trash gives a clue of whom the POV pusher is here. So, don't accuse me of wanting to delete other terms(which you know isen't even true), since the majority position which is nearly in all the works if not all which covers the etymology is totally absent from this article. So, now, who has a problem excluding words? And while Khorenatsi reference is repeated in various manuscripts for centuries one reference from one work for you written 800 later which is further in its prounciation of what it is now called for you is enough to give it equal weight. The article should clearly mention that it is generally agreed that the word is Armenian. It is generally agreed and preventing this information to be written here is simply POV pushing.

As for me pushing the Armenian version. Do you mean that by claiming that the word is etymologically Armenian and presenting the notable position is pushing the Armenian version? And what was the Nuh BS story incorporated in the article? That it is etymologically Armenian, who in the non-Azeri accademia who researched about the etymology oppose to that thesis? Fad (ix) 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

After searching the word Мира on google to see the context in which it is used, translating it with altavista translator (which uses systran), it indeed seems that it is used as World too(judging from the context used), even thought it is translated as peace. Fad (ix) 18:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The word мир translates from Russian as both peace and world. The letter at the end of the word is added to identify a grammar case, for example to say image of the world instead of English of in Russian ‘a’ is added at the end of the word мир, and you have – картина мира. You can use the online lingvo dictionary , I think it is the best one, or check with Russian speakers. We also know that jahan translates as world, therefore the correct translation is picture or image of the world, and not peace. As for the rest, it is a fact that Nakhichevan was historically known under various names and some of those names had their own etymology. The Armenian version may be as you say the most widely accepted and most ancient and most correct, etc, but it is not the only name the place historically had. So why those other names should be excluded? Grandmaster 06:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

More neutral sources

Azerbaijan 'flattened' sacred Armenian site

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article621782.ece --Eupator 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It should mentioned using this link how so many Europeans tried to access the site but were denied each time by the Azeri government.--Eupator 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

That’s not entirely accurate. Azerbaijan insists that the fact finding mission should visit both countries and check the situation with protection of cultural monuments. As far as I know, such mission of PACE will visit both countries in the near future. I’m looking forward to that, it will put an end to this dispute. Grandmaster 06:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Shah Abbas moved the local population

This is entirly false, they moved specifically the Armenian population. And yes! The Armenian population was a majority in Nakhichevan during that period, I did not knew that this was questioned in any notable work, do you Grandmaster? Also, can you cite any works about the destruction of any Azeri monuments in Armenia which was testified by any foreign organisation? While you claim the video is an alleged you remove the word alleged from a dubious source. When has Armenia EVER restricted access to observers in claimed destroyed Muslim monuments? Can you provide any examples please? Fad (ix) 19:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Armenians were not a majority in Nakhichevan. You have to cite your sources to include such information. And this is from encyclopedia Iranica:

Yet another important Kangarlu leader during Safavid times was Maqsáud Sultan Kangarlu, who is on Eskandar Monæi's list of the great amirs of the reign of Shah Abbas I (p. 1085). Shortly after the Persian capture of Erivan, in June 1604, he was appointed governor of Nakò±evan, north of the Aras river. But when, later that year, Ottoman forces threatened the area, Shah Abbas ordered Maqsáud Sultan to evacuate the entire population of the Nakò±evan region (including the Armenians of Jolfa, who, in the following year, were transplanted to Isfahan) to Qaraja Dag (Arasbaran) and Dezmar (Eskandar Monæi, pp. 656, 668).

Note entire population including the Armenians of Jolfa, and not entire Armenian population.

As for destruction of Azerbaijani monuments in Armenia, see de Waal, he describes the destruction of an Azerbaijani mosque in Yerevan in 1991. Grandmaster 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to keep like the way it is now. Live and let live is what I always say. I give.

Re: The destruction of the Armenian khachkars, I don't think we, as cool-headed, rational people should begin referencing destructions of monuments done by one group or the other from earlier periods in time because this will only incite an argument. For instance bringing up the Azeri mosque - I could argue back and say that "Turks desecrated Armenian churches in Istanbul" and list a million sources. It still wouldn't matter. We could go on and on about it. But what good will it do? There are thousands of Azeri and Armenian refugees from the Karabakh war have it harder than us (and no, I don't want to get into a DP numbers dispute).

My recent additions to the article were based on pieces of information that I had just read about. I'm sorry if they sparked any hard feelings.

Again, I say we leave this article the way it is now, just for the sake of moderation on both sides. Cheers, Clevelander 21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster is being immature, he want to suggest during the Malik period that the evacuation of the Armenians would not have changed anything about the rest of the population has been evacuated. OK, then, maybe he could tell us if most were not Armenian where were those non-Armenians been evacuated? We know the lists submitted about the construction of new Julfa, and you know and is documented why the Armenians were evacuated. Neither can he show us where were those supposed Tartars who Grandmaster consider were as least as much as Armenians, and for what reason would they have been evacuated, when Abbas provided reasons for the evacuation of the Armenians which could not have been applied to Tartars. Fad (ix) 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Population of Nakhichevan is equivalent as saying Armenians in those years. Grandmaster, even denying this I could not have expected from you. What sort of satisfaction do you feal by recycling nationalistic trash? When Abbas evacuated the Armenians it was during the period of the Armenian Maliks, it could have been assumed that the large majority of the population were Armenians. The Armenians were evacuated by Abbas because it was feared that the Ottoman will take control of those territories taking possession of a people who was considered as very skillful. Armenians were not evacuated just to be evacuated, they were forceblly intergrated in Abbas Empire to expand Iran's trade with India, China, Russia and Western Europe. You are only attempting to POV push and I am forced to say that you don't seem to have read anything about the period beside the googling you are doing, because had you read anything relevant you would not have made such ignorant comments.

For the next four centuries, Armenians, who had begun their dispersion after the fall of Ani and the Seljuk Turkish invasions in the eleventh century, continued to emigrate. In the meantime, Persia ( Iran) experienced a revival under the Shi'i Safavids, who became the adversaries of the Sunni Ottomans. From 1501 until 1639, the two fought each other periodically in Armenia. Armenians were uprooted during these wars, and, in 1604, some 250,000 Armenians were forcibly transferred by Shah 'Abbas to Iran. By the seventeenth century, the Armenians had become a minority in parts of their historic lands. The merchants of Julfa in Nakhichevan were among those who were brought to Iran by Shah 'Abbas; he moved them to a suburb of Isfahan where they built the New Julfa community. The support of 'Abbas and subsequent shahs enabled the Armenians to expand Iran's trade with India, China, Russia, and Western Europe. These merchants helped to make the Persian Gulf an important trade center. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas. p. 44 And guess what, and ungoogled book. Even during the signature of the Gultestan Treaty Armenians were forming a majority. (See: Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second book by Ludmila Evreinov p. 252), it was only following Gulestan and with the 'insitators' that the Muslim population became a majority just as soon as under 10 years following Gulestan. And After 1830s, the Armenian population reincreased to finaly settled to about near 40%.

Also, we are back to De Waal..., I wonder what would you have done haven't there been his book. Fad (ix) 21:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does your source say that the majority of the population of Nakhichevan were Armenians? It only specifically mentions the merchants of Julfa, as do other sources. You know the rules, you make a claim, you should back it up with references. Iranica says that Shah Abbas resettled the entire population of Nakhichevan, and mentions as Armenians only the people of Julfa (it says entire population, including Armenians of Julfa). As to where the people were resettled, you should read carefully before arguing, it says that people were resettled to Qaraja Dag (Arasbaran) and Dezmar. Grandmaster 04:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I also further neutralized the Armenian khachkars section. If you ask me, I think that all three of the states in the Southern Caucasus region should work together to prevent the destruction of any religious monuments, whether they originated from an ethnic group that once lived their or not. Azeri, Armenian - who cares? It was somebody's heritage. If all three work together than they can keep each other in check on this matter.

On the Armenian emigration from Nakhichevan, I revised it slightly to say "skilled Armenian workers." I don't think we should dwell on how many Armenians were living in that area. I still say let's just drop it and leave it like it is. -- Clevelander 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you need ALWAYS to turn this into an Armeno-Azeris confrontation? Do you take any satisfaction in doing that? Why can't you just accept that you ignore that period like you seemed to ignore yourself about Shah Abbas depopulation at the begining and which once you learned about it you started twisting it? Before Shah Abbas Nakhichevan was considered as part of Armenia by its population. Nakhichevan IS on the Armenian plateau, a geographic border. Refering to the Malik period to the Nakhichevani population is similar as talking about Armenians. I already quoted from a work in which Nakhichevan was called part of Armenia. Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population. He settled some 13,000 families in the silk-growing northern provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan bordering on the Caspian. (Source: The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), p. 39) Only from Julfa 30,000 Armenians were moved, do you even have a clue about the entire population of Nakhichevan during that period? Also your request in reference to my lack of careful reading touch sarcasm and is at the same time highly ironic. You seem under the constent need to twist things to regurgitate nationalistic propagandas. The Tartars living in Nakhichevan pre-Abbas were nomadic tribs, HOW on earth do you restle nomads? And what justification would there be to restle nomads from Nakhichevan? You request sources while you provide none. It is for you to document that during the Armenian Maliks, the Armenians were not forming any majority, when only in Julfa there was 30,000 Armenians evacuated, and there was certainly not much more than 60,000 people living in the entire Nakhichevan, while that land was geographicaly situated on the middle of two empires and was in constant attacks. And this was the main reason why the Armenian population was deported, Abbas was under constant fear that it would be lost in the profit of the Ottoman Empire and wanted those Armenians, he took them and burned their homes destroying the ressources for if Nakhichevan was ever to fall. This is history 101 of that period, but yet you creat the illusion that populations were just moved regardless of their ethnicities. You are the one assuming that Yerevan and Nakhichevan were emptied equaly, because of some sort of undiscriminate evacuation, which I know of no reputable historian that claims so. You inject this preconcieved belief of yours that there were at least as much Tartars in Nakhichevan, while we have figures of Armenian population from the deportation decrees etc., but have absolutly no information about Tartars. Also, it would help a lot if you read about Arasbaran and Dezmar and their connection with new Julfa. Fad (ix) 18:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You have not shown me a source, stating that only the Armenian population of Nakhichevan was evacuated. In fact, you have not provided a single source about Nakhichevan. And that’s what we are talking about here, Nakhchivan. I provided a source that states that the entire population of Nakhichevan was evacuated, including Armenians of Julfa. It did not say that entire Armenian population was evacuated, including those of Julfa. That makes difference, doesn’t it? So it’s not me who turns this into another battleground. You are an experienced contributor, and you know the rules about citing sources, and about personal attacks as well. The comments like “Grandmaster is being immature” are not really nice. I make no notice of that this time, but please remember to comment on content and not the contributor. As for the article, I suggest we leave it as it is to stop the argument. Shah Abbas resettled the entire population, and that’s it. Grandmaster 04:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is really about time that you reconsider your contribution to Misplaced Pages Grandmaster. In all seriousness, I have no idea what more to add. You totally ignore the history of the region, googling about whatever subject you want and then copypast stuff. Yes! I already sourced that Nakhichevan was majority Armenian, I provided a work and even the page. (See: Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second book by Ludmila Evreinov p. 252) Only Armenians and to some extent Georgians were targeted in the evacuation, you refuse even to listen those who have the understanding of the region and the period to provide you a historic of what happened in the region. Linda K. Steinmann in her work Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987), pp. 68-74 covers the evacuation of the Armenians, and to a lesser extent elsewhere of Georgians, but nowhere does she say anything about any evacuation of Tartars. Your supposition is your supposition. You have to document that Tartars have been evacuated, you can not draw a conclusion just because the term population is used. I provide sources after the other, and you still request that I should source what I claim. Ina Baghdiantz McCabe covers the evacuation in her work The Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750), I don't see anything about Tartars being evacuated or an undiscriminate evacuation, or any reference of an important Tartar population in Nakhichevan. Every sources I know of equal the Nakhichevan population with Armenians. As for immaturity, it is not a personal attack, once you have time you should read the policies and guidelines to make the distinction between what is considered as uncivility and what is considered as personal attack. I have enough of this, push you POV here too. Fad (ix) 17:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, don’t look for good excuses to avoid providing sources to support your claim. Either you provide a source that explicitly states that only Armenians were evacuated from the territory of the whole Nakhichevan and not only Julfa, or leave this topic alone. You take offence when I say that you don’t read the sources, but it’s true. For your information, see the same article about the tribe of Kengerli. As you know, Turkic population of Nakhichevan consisted not only of Kengerli, Oguz Turks lived in the area at least since the times it was part of Seljuk empire and capital of Ildegezid state. Momine Khatun Mausoleum, the 12th century monument, is a remnant of that era. But the article about Kengerli people describes only this particular tribe, how they came to be in Nakhichevan and what happened to them during Shah Abbas resettlement. Btw, Nakhichevan khans were also Kengerli. Quote:

Many Kangarlu settled north of the Aras river, probably in around 1500, when the Ustajlu moved into Azerbaijan. In 1809, J. M. Jouannin, described these Kangarlu as "a small tribe established in Persian Armenia, on the shores of the Aras, and numbering up to four or five thousand individuals" (p. 459). In 1921, M. H. Valili Baharlu wrote that there were Kangarlu around Gökchay, Javanshir and Shusha (pp. 61ff.). Many of these are undoubtedly the descendants of Kangarlu who were forced to move south of the Aras river by Shah Abbas I in 1604, and were then allowed to return to their original grazing grounds by Shah Abbas II (r. 1642-1666) in an attempt to repopulate the frontier regions of his realm.

Today, there is a clan of the Haji Alilu tribe of Qaraja Dag by the name of Kangarlu. In 1960, it comprised some 25 households (Iranian Army Files). There is also a village by the name of Kangarlu 24 kms to the north of Meshginshahr, in the same general area (Razmara, p. 429). These are probably the descendants of Kangarlu who were moved to Qaraja Dag in 1604 and remained there.

So this proves false your claims that only the Armenians were resettled. You may continue making personal attacks to cover up your inability to back up your claims with reliable sources, but I suggest you show more respect to other contributors and pay attention to the sources they provide. Grandmaster 18:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a dictionary and check what the word prove means.

The text above does not support your position at all. Aras river is the geographic border of Nakhichevan, there are no numbers neither any evidences that there was any considerable population of Tartars inside Nakhichevan at that time, don't forget that this was over a century after Josepho Barbaro visit or two century after the dynamic period when there was 150,000 people. And no, there waren't much Turkic inside Nakhichevan at Abbas period, you can not presume under the pretext it was ruled by Turkics that the Armenians were not constituting any majority centuries after their fall. Turkic tribs established along the Aras river, they were mostly nomads who depended of the river, and you can not draw any generalization on the basis that a trib was moved from the North of a river to South. It is not to me to document anything, I documented that only from Julfa there were 30,000 Armenians deported(there are even figures of as much as 150,000 with its borderings), while you haven't presented any evidences that there was any considerable population of Tartars or any other ethnic group beside Armenians in Nakhichevan during the Meliks. You claim that they weren't mostly Armenian, it is for you to document that there was at least tens of thousands of Tartars. And the tribs on the border are far from counting, since the river on North was secured because the bordering was used as a military camp. Also, what you copypasted shows that those tribs were allowed to come back later, which is obvious since the military along the Aras was later evacuated. Sir William Ouseley during his visit in 1812 has only discribed the destruction of the Armenian city during the evacuation. All those evidences with the various works I have provided, shows a massive Armenian deportation, but nothing about Tartars. You are the one claiming there was such a massive Tartar deportation, go ahead document it. Up to now, you only pasted googled material, and the best you did only partially supported your claim.

Oh and, haven't I told you to read and understand what personal attack means? You are making up false charges against me. And what source have you provided? I have provided various works, and ungoogled ones, don't accuse others of what you are doing. Fad (ix) 20:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice try at spin, Fadix, but I don’t claim anything. You claimed that only Armenians were deported, I proved that you were misrepresenting the facts (to say the least). I think the page is OK the way it is now, it says that Shah Abbas deported the whole population, and that’s correct. If you want to say that he deported only or predominantly the Armenian population from the whole Nakhichevan, go ahead and cite your sources, so far you have not cited a single source specific to Nakhcivan. Only something about Julfa, which is not the whole Nakhchivan. And what’s a googled source? Are you trying to say that I found the source thru google and therefore it’s not reliable? Encyclopedia Iranica was recommended to me by Iranian users, who insist that it is the most comprehensive and reliable source on Iranian history. And indeed, many articles are written by well-known Western scholars, including the one about Kengerli. So it’s a very good source, specific to Iran, no matter what you think about google, which I did not actually use to find this source. Grandmaster 06:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Iranica does not support you, it says those tribs were allowed back(living on the border), all the references from observers of that time refers to the destroyed Armenian villages towns and cities. In Julfa there was not a single Muslim, Nakhichevan even recieved the Armenian population of Ani after its destruction. And yes! Julfa is important, it was by population the biggest city at that time. You assume that population meant that Tartars alongside with Armenians were moved, when there weren't much Tartars left there. You don't even have any indication an example of a SINGLE town which population could number a couple of thousand people. Your purpouses is only to delete any mention of Armenians, so claiming population is so convinient for you. Fad (ix) 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You again present your wishes as facts. Iranica does not say that all the resettled people were Armenians as you claim, it mentions only Armenians from Julfa. It also says that some Kengerli people still live in Qaraja Dag, where people of Nakhichevan were resettled, while many of them returned to Nakhichevan. Here’s another article from the same encyclopedia Iranica, this time about Ordubad:

The Turco-Persian name "army town" implies a foundation during the period of the Mongol invasions or the ensuing Il-Khanid one, especially as the Il-Khanids made Azerbaijan the center of their power. Certainly, Hamd-Allah Mostawfi (writing in the mid-14th century) describes it as a provincial town, one of the five towns making up the tuman of Nakhjavan, with fine gardens, and producing good grapes, corn and cotton.

So do you think the town founded by Turks had no Turkic population? And what happened to the people who built the beautiful mausoleums in 12th century during the times when Nakhichevan was capital of Seljuk states? They all disappeared without a trace? Of course Nakhichevan had Muslim population, and not only nomadic, and it all was resettled. Armenians were a minority and lived in significant numbers only in Julfa. Grandmaster 20:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My wishes? Why should I even wish that few hundreds of years ago Armenians were forming a majority in Nakhichevan? I'd rather wish right now oblique illumination for my microscope. You weren't able to cite a SINGLE Muslim town that just before Abbas the population was numbering tens of thousands of people. You now claim that Muslim were forming a majority. And what town are you refering to? Are you seriously claiming that before Abbas there was any considerable Muslim population in Julfa? During the 12th century, Julfa was destroyed by the invasion, there are relics about that. Why should 12th century be relevant, we are talking about 17nt. Before 12th century, there were no Turks in Nakhichevan, they were Armenians. Using your logic, I could claim that eastern Anatolia population is Armenian just because in the 1830s the majority population were Armenians. I already told you, the word population is equaled with Armenian there. After 15nt century it was the demise of Nakhichevan, its population declined considerably.

Since you are not satisfied with the various references I have provided, here few more.

In 1603 Shah 'Abbas, the great Safavid ruler of Persia, sent an expedition into Armenia in answer to the appeals of the inhabitants for assistance against the Turks. The death of the Sultan Mahmud III in December 1603 and the succession of his son Ahmed, a boy of twelve, opened the way to an easy conquest in the course of which both retreating Turks and invading Persians plundered the Armenians. The Persian victory was followed by a forced emigration of the population to the Shah's capital of Isfahan. « That dragon of hell, Shah Abbas, nourished from the beginning in the ways of the serpent, saw with an eye of envy the prosperity of the Christians. » So Arakel of Tauriz, the seventeenth-century Armenian historian, puts it, and it was indeed the skill of new... Armenia was left desolates... (A Seventeenth-Century typological cycle of paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa, T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. 3/4 pp.323-324)

Still any doubt about what population means?

D.M. Lang writes that one of the two major reasons of the deportation was: ...he desired to make use of the industrial and commercial talents of the Armenians... (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 622) Julfa population was so important that he separate it from Nakhichevan as a different entity.

How does this apply to nomadic tribs?

Another one: In order to secure his peripheral western frontiers from possible Armenian-Ottoman collusions, Shah Abbas found it expedient in 1604-5 to depopulate those areas and distribute the Armenian population through Iran. ...Shah Abbas had still another reason for moving Armenians to his real: he hoped to benefit from their great artistic and commercial skills. (The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp.128-129)

I wonder how far you will bring this. Fad (ix) 01:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, show me where exactly your sources mention Nakhichevan. Grandmaster 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Nakhichevan is on the Armenian Plateau, it is a geographic separation, it was from the river to Easter Yerevan the peripheral western frontier. Since you still refuse, and want it more clearer, here another source which make it clearer for you: Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani-populated enclave within Armenia that is administratively part of Azerbaijan, from which the Armenian inhabitants had been expelled in 1604.(Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994) pp. 841-842) Shall I now build a time machine and bring you there? There is little doubt that Armenians were specifically targeted and Julfa, Nakhichevan and Erivan population were deported. This is also following the meliks what is now the pieces called Nagorno Karabakh had still an Armenian majority which it has always maintained since now, because it was too far away to be part of a generalised forced evacuation. Fad (ix) 18:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

That’s apparently also about people of Julfa. Anyway, I cited sources that indicated that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled, including Muslims. In places like the town of Nakhichevan or Ordubad Armenians were a minority. For example, the aforementioned Hamdollah Mostowfi (Qazvini), 14th century historian, says that people of the town of Nakhichevan were white-faced and followed Shafi`i madhab (of Sunni Islam). I don’t think Armenians were Muslims, and Christians are not mentioned. At the times of Safavids shia Islam became predominant in the region, but it is unlikely that the Armenians increased in number. And no, Armenians were not targeted, the purpose of the resettlement was the scorched earth policy, and shah Abbas left to Ottomans lands with no population, so that they had no food and other supplies. Grandmaster 18:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously clueless Grandmaster and I can't now only claim any negligence from your part. I have never denied that some Muslims have been deported, what I said was that Armenians were singled out and that there is no doubt that Nakhichevan majority population was Armenian and that the depopulation was done in that direction and primarly for that reason. There are primary sources that testify that from 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians were removed from Julfa, Nakhichevan and Erivan, for that period it simply means over 60% of the statistics of the entire people and about 75% of the people in Nakhichevan, where are the figures for Muslims? About Ordubad, again here we have an evidences that you don't have any clue of what you are talking about. The town of Nakhichevan was an Armenian town before the Armenians were depopulated in the 12th century, they were the one giving the name to that town, which BTW after I have documented with countless numbers of sources you refuse to accept. After the 14th century Nakhichevan was desolated, it was also during the same period that Ani after its destruction was slowly depopulated and its population moved to Julfa and its seroundings, and talking about surroundings you should check where is Ordubad and in connection with Julfa, it was build on the desolated previous Armenian important town and still some come accross Armenian relics on that town to this day. In 14th century indeed Nakhichevan town was an important Muslim center, but the town lost its importance, Ordubad was also slowly deserted and Armenians from Julfa started populating it in the 15th century. In the 1830s, in Eastern Anatolia the Armenians were a clear majority, but this say a little about the demographic of the region for 1896, only in a period of about 60 years the Armenian population just dropped dramatically. You are providing evidences which separate both periods of about 300 years, but you weren't ever able to provide a single source showing us that there was any considerable Tartar population comparable to the Armenian population (you even have the audacity to claim a majority) in Nakhichevan JUST before Abbas depopulated that region, you don't have any single figure of records from primary sources of the number of Tartars or Muslims being moved? There are primary records of numbers of Armenian families and EVEN Georgians deported from regions, statistics of Armenians being moved by orders. But the only thing we have about the Turkic population being moved are some nomadic tribs on the bordering of the river, who returned after the fall anyway.

Your claim not only isen't subtensiated by any sources, not only do you find the need to provide works covering periods outdating of few centuries and extrapolate, but your proposition defy logic. Nakhichevan is on the Armenian Plateau, it has a geographic border for what was called Eastern Armenia, the closest to the Armenians demographical region on the middle between Van center on the West and the 8 Mahals of Karabakh which Armenians populated(which includes part of present Zenkezour and Mountainous Karabakh), but yet the farrer region the only that was exempt from deportation kept a clear majority still centuries after Abbas.

As for Zankezour, I just have read the myths on your edit summary. Dude, Nakhichevan was recognized by Azeris administrations of the SSR as part of the republic of Armenia, I have a French translation of that letter, do you want me to post it? Zankezour dispute never existed to begin with because its delimitation was really forged recently not much before World War I, a section of it was with Mountainous Karabakh part of 'Karabakh' which is not to be equated with the mountainous region. So, the dispute really ended with a slicing of a pieces and given to Azerbaijan, this so-called dispute about Zankezour is an invention of the Azerbaijani Academia of science which either doesn't even master the delimitation of the pre-war territory or there is something premedited in doing that. Do you SERIOUSLY believe that after what Nuri has done in his so-called excurtion and the Turkish nationalists under Kemal negotiations with the Bolshevics there would have been any faviors granted to Armenia? Zankezour was kept by the Armenian army, recognized by the Azeris side part of Armenia, and the only conflicts about any disputes was only after the Azeris Tartars recieved a backup from the Turkish positions and later decided to drop the peace agreement and attempted penetrating it, which 60% population was Armenian.

Now, google more..., as if googling and attempting to find few things you can will make of your contribution encyclopedic by trying to build some notability to your position that has none. Fad (ix) 02:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, once again, show me a source which provides figures of population of Nakhichevan region at the time, both Muslim and Armenian. Until you do that, the text remains the way it is now. So far all we have are your assumptions of what those figures could be. Grandmaster 04:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

What you are saying is like asking me to prove that the majority of the population in Gaule were Gaulois. Nakhichevan delimitation didn't exist at that time, it has no geographic border with Armenia, it is on the Armenian plateau. I would have hoped that you would keep the same standard on requesting evidences yourself when you add crap like the term 'population exchange.' The only periods where Nakhichevan as borderings was started to be really delimitated was during the Gulistan Treaty, and Russia protested its lost under the claim that the Armenians who were Christians were outnumbering others(This changed starting with 1790s massive Armenian emigration to up until 1828). And I have already provided you the source, but since for you when a position doesn't satisfy you you nearly request a time machine lets quote from it. The Treaty signed at Gulestan (in Karabakh) was not the optimum in Russian eyes: Moslem khans, vassals of Persia, retained Nakhichevan and Yerevan with their predominantly Christian-Armenian populations. (Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second book by Ludmila Evreinov p. 252) Of course in a period of few years a recorded huge numbers of Armenians emigrated from Nakhichevan as a result(this started even before thought (in the 1790s), and I just hope you won't deny this as well and force me to source it, but I will too. In 1828 already, there wasn't much Armenians left, while even during Gulestan the Armenian outnumbering other groups was really by a fringe and inprecise because of the massive emigration, for example in a short period of time 20,000 Armenians left Erivan for Geogia which later continued.

Comming back to Abbas I doubt you really know what represent 250-300,000 people in pre-Abbas period, and I doubt you realise how nonesense is your request. Constantinople was Ottoman's capital, for how many years the Christians were outnumbering the Turks? Do you even know for what Nakhichevan was used by the Ottoman(which alone explains why under its rules there could not have been much Turks there)? Believe me, it is not by googling few words from Russian sites to get what you want that you will learn the history of that region. Fad (ix) 17:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, it’s time to expose your another attempt to misrepresent the information. Armenians were not in majority in the territory of modern Armenia during neither during Safavid rule, nor at the time of Gulistan treaty. They were a small minority. This is evident even from Armenian sources. See the article about Erivan in Iranica, written by George A. Bournoutian and Robert H. Hewsen. It’s far from neutrality and has an obvious bias, but still says something different to what you try to present as a fact:

The khanate was divided into fifteen administrative districts (mahall). Muslims (Persians, Turco-Mongols, Kurds) made up 80 percent of the population and were either sedentary, semi-sedentary, or nomadic. Christians (all Armenians) constituted the remaining 20 percent of the population and lived in Erevan or the villages.

And then:

Due to centuries of warfare, by 1804 Erevan's population had been reduced to 6,000. It began to rise once again during the tenure of the last khan, and in 1827 it exceeded 20,000, with the Armenians forming barely twenty percent of the population.

As you can see, the googled sources are a lot more reliable than the obscure ones, written by people without sufficient knowledge of the subject.

And also, you are being incivil again. How many times should I remind you about the basic decency rules? I’m afraid that I will have to inform the admins about this, because I see no other way to make you observe the code of conduct here. I have already warned you in the course of this discussion, but you wouldn’t listen. Grandmaster 19:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How am I being incivil? And how is the above text in anyway contradicting or 'exposing' any attempt to misrepresent information? You still don't assume good faith and you always still think that I as an Armenian with my 'another attempt' has a goal to misrepresent informations, I think this is more grave than some percieved incivility. And how that text has obvious biases? Let me guess, because there is an Armenian having contributed in writting it? Had it been not of Bournoutian, there would still be various records of that period remaining in the dark. Read carefully, it refers to the Erivan Khanate, read the part you skipped about its borders as well as the period it covers, exactly what I have been saying. About the second paragraph, you should read carefully what I wrote, this only confirms what I said about the emigration of the Armenians from the 1790s to 1928. The text I provided refers to prior to the Treaty of Gulestan signed in 1813, what you provide rightly covers the desertion of the region of Erivan, which from 1795 to 1827 had lost 20,000 Armenians(which is also provided in another work of the same author which you quote) who left for Georgia and the Khan replacement of the Armenian population by Muslims. Neither does this have anything to do with Nakhichevan, neither does it contradict in anyway what I have been writting here. Now, I bring back to prior to Abbas depopulation of the region, and ask to to take demographic maps of the world for that period and do the math about what represented 250,000-300,000 in such a small territory. You still seem to not understand how much people that represent for that period. Can you provide even evidences of half that number of Tartars in the region? I have provided various records which support what I have been saying, and the only things you have provided doesn't even support what you say, and here your new attempt is just one more example on how you don't have any works which will contradict the documentation I have provided. Fad (ix) 21:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This has gone long enough. Gm will never stop pushing his pov until an admin rules on this.--Eupator 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Fadix, it’s you who should present demographic maps and demonstrate figures for the Armenian and Muslim population of the region. So far you have not provided any figures from any reliable sources. As for Bournatian, he says that during the period of Persian rule Armenians constituted 20 percent of the population, so that was before the Gulistan treaty. I don’t know who Ludmila Evreinov or whoever wrote the book you were referring to are, but they are definitely not experts on the history of the region. Nakhichevan had predominant Muslim population long before the Russian rule, see the same Iranica, History of Azerbaijan, Islamic period to 1941, Bosworth, C., page 225:

In the Mongol period, indeed, the Christian communities enjoyed at the outset a comparative florescence and toleration; in the time of the Great Khan Guyuk (r.1246 – 49), the influence with Mongol horde of the Syrian monk Simeon Rabban Ata secured the building of churches in strongly Muslim towns like Tabriz and Nakhchevan (Nakjavan), until the conversion to Islam of Gazan (r.694 – 703/1295 - 1304) brought about a reversal of this favor (see Spuler, Mongolen, pp. 203 ff). Thereafter, Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction, with the exception of the vestigial Nestorian or Assyrian Christian Neo-Syriac-speaking communities of the lake Urmiya region, which have survived till today. Grandmaster 05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you even reading what I write? Read Bournatian one more time, this time more carefuly, he specifically covers the period which I was talking about, he also is the one providing the data of the Armenian emigration from Erivan region from 1795 to 1827, he document the desertion and the Armenian refugees in his works. He does not contradict what I am saying. And your new data, well, again, you are not reading me, I do not disagree on this, it was those years that Julfa was destroyed and its Armenian population deported this is also documented, the Armenians will later, during the Ottoman partial controls where Nakhichevan will be used as a storing place for the marchandises from India etc, recolonise that region and rebuild Julfa. I already contended that during the Mongol invasion the Armenian population dropped. What on the other hand I said was that pre Abbas in the 17th century just before the deportation, Armenians were there constituting a majority, and I have provided various works that equal the population with Armenian and I have also provided another work which the author you claim has not much knowledge. We are not talking about the same period at all. While I recognize every periods when Muslim have constituted a majority, with obstinence you refuse to listen as if Azerbaijan will lose Nakhichevan just because I wrote that and that you accepted it. Give yourself a brake Grandmaster, we are debating about this whole affair because of a simple word, just like your obstinence about the term enclave which you wanted to remove. Fad (ix) 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is about factual accuracy, you have not provided any sources about the numbers of population of Nakhichevan before shah Abbas deportation. Now please provide your sources that prove that “pre Abbas in the 17th century just before the deportation, Armenians were there constituting a majority”. Note that we are talking about sources on Nakhichevan only, and not other regions. As for Bournatian, he provides the figures for population twice in the text, and I cited both instances. But since it’s about Erivan and has no relevance to this discussion, I leave that topic for now. To end this dispute, I suggest to leave the text the way it now, it’s quite neutral and should be acceptable to everybody. Grandmaster 06:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There weren't even proper data for those years from Europe and you expect me to provide statistics? It is like requesting statistics to claim that Gaule was populated of Gaulois. I have provided records using the term Armenian ecxluding other groups, I have provided records statistics of 250-300,000, I have provided another work which claims majority. What you ever did was to provide datas that at least 200 years pre that period or 300 years after. The closest data was provided by me and which either equated population for 'Armenians' or another one used the term majority, and another one only talked about the depopulation of Armenians. Being neutral doesn't mean to add misleading wordings, the way it is, no one would guess that the Armenians and this in the entire article had even a history there or they had ever constituted an significant part of the population. It isen't enough for you that the entirity of the history of the Armenians in Nakhichevan is entirly missing from the article, for hell sake Grandmaster you even disputed that the word is generally known as Armenian, you even have a problem with the term Armenian being added anywhere or accept that Armenians for some period in the history of Nakhichevan have constituted a majority. If you are really good intentioned, I think you would not have had the problem with the word Armenian there when the history section start with trash about the etymology of the word and with referrences that aren't cited anywhere. Fad (ix) 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If there’s no statistics, how can you make claims about Armenian majority? The numbers of 250-300 thousand in a greater area are very vague, how do you know how many of them lived in Nakhchivan and how many Muslims were there? What was the total population of the greater region where this 250-300 thousand lived? I provided my source which describes Nakhchivan as a place with predominantly Muslim population. Sorry, but you have not provided any reliable sources to establish that Armenians were in majority at the time. So either cite reliable sources on the population of the region, or give it up. Grandmaster 07:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

And the book, to which you were referring, Alexander I, Emperor of Russia: A reappraisal by Ludmila Evreinov, does not appear to be a study on the history of the region, but rather a historical essay about the Russian tsar. It’s highly doubtful that the author has a good knowledge of the region. Grandmaster 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you even listening to me? In 1838, the Armenian Oblast (Armenian province) population was numbering of about 165,000 people according to statistics, about half were Armenian(excluding the later 200,000 on its seroundings who later immigrated). In 1924 the population of Azerbaijan was of 2 million, 75% were Azeri Tartars, it compromised of Baku province , Elizavetpol Province and the adjoining districts, (including Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhochevan). From 250-300,000 Armenians were moved from Julfa, Erivan and Nakhichevan in 1604 and following, if you claim that there was even as much Muslim there, you are totally ignoring the history of the period. Since the partial control by the Ottoman, Nakhichevan and Erivan served as depots of goods, intermedary from the Ouest and East, Persia even further pushed that but replaced the Armenians who would rather trade on the Shah's capital. You claim having provided data, but you have provided absolutly nothing, because the only things you have provided, even before I covered them, and what you present in no way contradict what I claim. A projection of that much people (250-300,000), to claim that Tartars at least presented that much in the Western zone, would have been just sensless.

What I have provided.

1-That there were reasons specifically targetting Armenians which do not apply and were not applied to Muslims.

2-I have provided materials excluding the Muslims in reference to the depopulation.

3-I have provided materials equating the population with the word Armenian.

4-I have provided a reference prior to Gultestan Treaty, and you dismissed the author, while in Misplaced Pages we only present sources and if there exist critics from notable published materials of those sources. What you think of the author is original research.

You answered by presenting 13-14th century and post Gulestan materials, which in no way have I contested nor do they contradict what I have been saying. I have provided figures of Armenian moved, which by projection represent 2 million or more Armenians if projected for 1918, and those excludes the recorded numbers of Armenians who escaped depopulation and inspite of it, there still remained a considerable number of Armenians pre Gulestan, which I also documented. I have documented everything I have been claiming, you request things that do not exist, because there was no Nakhochevan delimitation in that period, nor statistics for a bordering which is quite modern in comparaison to Abbas period.

In short, what you have highlighted is that the word Armenian has no place in this article, and that you have no intention to improve it. You know that what you propose is misleading but you still claim it is neutral. As we speak 98% of Nakhichevan population is Azeri, so claiming depopulation could only be misleading in that it suggest that Azeris were those moved when the Armenians were those mostly affected. Obviously here, we do have a problem, and as it appears, you in no way want to correct it. Fad (ix) 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

First off, we have statistics for Nakhichevan in 1830s from Griboyedov, the Armenian population of Nakhichevan was tiny before the massive resettlement from Persia. Note, that this info is specific to Nakhichevan and not Armenian oblast. I can tell you exactly how many Armenians were there. I don’t think it’s even worth arguing, I can present his letter. And we don’t need your projections, we need facts.

Second, I provided documents to show that the whole population of the region, both Muslim and Armenian, was resettled. I also showed you that at least in the 14th century the population of Nakhichevan was predominantly Muslim, and there’s no way Armenians could increase in number and the number of Muslims drop. Iranica even says that after 14th century Christianity in Azerbaijan declined to the point of extinction, how can you claim that the number of Armenians increased? And no, you have not provided any sources about population of Nakhichevan (not Armenia), so we have nothing to talk about. The sources only specifically mention Armenians of Julfa, but provide no numbers for the total population of Nakhichevan at the times of Abbas I. In short, there’s no consensus on your proposed edit and I strongly object to your interpretation of historical events. The way the article is now is quite neutral, it says nothing about who was in majority, even though it’s obvious that Muslim population prevailed. Grandmaster 19:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, where is Francis? Grandmaster, I can not know any other words than POV pushing to discribe what you are doing. WHERE DID I EVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT NAKHICHEVAN POPULATION IN 1830s, do you see me ever contesting those statistics? Do you even see me contesting 14th century material? Besides, Nakhichevan discribed there is NOT Nakhichevan with its current bordering. Grandmaster, don't get offended but up to now you have demonstrated that you have no clue of what you are talking about. Taking Nakhichevan as a whole, in its pick, the population jumped to 150,000, it was its most important period, after the 13th century it was replaced, in 14th century, it droped to about half of its prior population, it lost its statue, at 15th century it was taken over by Armenians from the vicinities of Van, and after the desertion of Ani, people moved there. Julfa alone represented a significant portion of the entire population. The closest to the Abbas period you cam is of over 200 years, while I provided data which covered that period. You are the one making up things which you can in no way backup. Here, let readd the materials I have provided.

For the next four centuries, Armenians, who had begun their dispersion after the fall of Ani and the Seljuk Turkish invasions in the eleventh century, continued to emigrate. In the meantime, Persia ( Iran) experienced a revival under the Shi'i Safavids, who became the adversaries of the Sunni Ottomans. From 1501 until 1639, the two fought each other periodically in Armenia. Armenians were uprooted during these wars, and, in 1604, some 250,000 Armenians were forcibly transferred by Shah 'Abbas to Iran. By the seventeenth century, the Armenians had become a minority in parts of their historic lands. The merchants of Julfa in Nakhichevan were among those who were brought to Iran by Shah 'Abbas; he moved them to a suburb of Isfahan where they built the New Julfa community. The support of 'Abbas and subsequent shahs enabled the Armenians to expand Iran's trade with India, China, Russia, and Western Europe. These merchants helped to make the Persian Gulf an important trade center. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas. p. 44

Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population. He settled some 13,000 families in the silk-growing northern provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan bordering on the Caspian. (Source: The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), p. 39)

Linda K. Steinmann in her work Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987), pp. 68-74 covers the evacuation of the Armenians, and to a lesser extent elsewhere of Georgians, but nowhere does she say anything about any evacuation of Tartars.

Ina Baghdiantz McCabe covers the evacuation in her work The Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750), I don't see anything about Tartars being evacuated or an undiscriminate evacuation, or any reference of an important Tartar population in Nakhichevan.

Josepho Barbaro while visiting the devastation reports destruction of Armenian towns and its desertion, not Tartars.

Sir William Ouseley during his visit in 1812 has only discribed the destruction of the Armenian city during the evacuation.

In 1603 Shah 'Abbas, the great Safavid ruler of Persia, sent an expedition into Armenia in answer to the appeals of the inhabitants for assistance against the Turks. The death of the Sultan Mahmud III in December 1603 and the succession of his son Ahmed, a boy of twelve, opened the way to an easy conquest in the course of which both retreating Turks and invading Persians plundered the Armenians. The Persian victory was followed by a forced emigration of the population to the Shah's capital of Isfahan. « That dragon of hell, Shah Abbas, nourished from the beginning in the ways of the serpent, saw with an eye of envy the prosperity of the Christians. » So Arakel of Tauriz, the seventeenth-century Armenian historian, puts it, and it was indeed the skill of new... Armenia was left desolates... (A Seventeenth-Century typological cycle of paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa, T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. 3/4 pp.323-324)

D.M. Lang writes that one of the two major reasons of the deportation was: ...he desired to make use of the industrial and commercial talents of the Armenians... (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 622) Julfa population was so important that he separate it from Nakhichevan as a different entity.

How does this apply to nomadic tribs?

Another one: In order to secure his peripheral western frontiers from possible Armenian-Ottoman collusions, Shah Abbas found it expedient in 1604-5 to depopulate those areas and distribute the Armenian population through Iran. ...Shah Abbas had still another reason for moving Armenians to his real: he hoped to benefit from their great artistic and commercial skills. (The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp.128-129)

Still, sources for pre-Gulestan. The Treaty signed at Gulestan (in Karabakh) was not the optimum in Russian eyes: Moslem khans, vassals of Persia, retained Nakhichevan and Yerevan with their predominantly Christian-Armenian populations. (Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second book by Ludmila Evreinov p. 252)

Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani-populated enclave within Armenia that is administratively part of Azerbaijan, from which the Armenian inhabitants had been expelled in 1604.(Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994) pp. 841-842)

You really refuse to listen in face of the obvious, and you assume that the Armenians could not have formed any majority, those are your belief. Do you have any records of propulation for the number of Muslim moved from Nakhichevan? The best you did was in reference to the depopulation, but I never contested that there was Muslim moved, there were mostly on the river to secure the irrigation when the entire zone was used as a military camp, but regardless after the fall, people returned while only Armenians and to a lesser extent have had a discriminate deportation. And I did document that, while you did nothing such, you only presented irrelevent materials, had you had the sources to backup you would not have turned around the hole like you did. Something is obvious, and it is that you obstinently don't want to listen, since you believe that any reference to the descriminate Armenian depopulation will somehow question the legitimity of Nakhichevan republic, I wonder how, but I can't find any other conclusion. Fad (ix) 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source stating that Armenians formed a majority in Nakhichevan in 1604. All your sources are pretty vague and say nothing about population of Nakhichevan in 1604. So stop it, Fadix. You can only prove that Armenians from Julfa were resettled to Isfahan, which I never denied. I will respond when you come with real sources, and not your interpretations of what the population could be. We can ask Francis to mediate, if you wish. Grandmaster 04:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're going to knock every book, every article, and every source he shows you? "They are not experts in the region." Hakob 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not knock anything. He simply has not provided any source about the population of the region in 1604. Only his assumptions about what it could be. Grandmaster 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's it, I am editing it. Fad (ix) 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, stop it, this has gone much too far. Fad (ix) 14:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to add an in line reference, saying it's been discussed on the talk page is not good enough. You have the sources so why not do that? When you do that, he wont be able to revert. Unless you don't know how to add references?--Eupator 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't use proper footnoting, also the references are webpages, I don't usually use webpages but works which are not accessible on the web. I'll see what I can do. I will be also modifying the leads of the history section, the etymology of the term must be expended and also what most believe of its ethymology. Also must be expended that deportation of Jews and Armenians under prior Persian rules (The Jewish encyclopedia document it), as well as the destruction of Julfa and the deportation of the Armenians in the 12th century. The entire information about the Armenians is totally missing in this article, most importantly prior to the 12th century. Fad (ix) 15:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't have time to help as i'm barely able to expand the articles I created (working on Arsacids now) but I will help you with any problems you might encounter once the in line references are added (this is need in particular for the Josephus citation). The references must site sources, if the sources are available on a web site than that's even better as the items in the footnote can also be linked. Bon chance.--Eupator 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

More media links

World watches in silence as Azerbaijan wipes out Armenian culture

Ancient crosses smashed with sledgehammers --Eupator 17:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read the latter yet, but the former is included and referenced in the article. -- Clevelander 19:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Ok, after some requests, I'm here. Sorry for the delay :) Now, can each side please try and explain what the issue is here, in their own words, with diffs and sources if required... - FrancisTyers · 19:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. would I be correct in thinking that this dispute has two characteristics; 1. The population of Nakhichevan in the 1600s was majority Armenian prior to a deportation. 2. Any reference to population implies Armenian population. ? - FrancisTyers · 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the etymology of Nakhichevan.--Eupator 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster's perspective

Hi Francis. Thanks for joining. You are right. We have a dispute over a historical fact. In 1604 during the war with Ottoman empire Persian shah Abbas I ordered resettlement of the entire population of Nakhichevan to Iran. The purpose of the resettlement was the scorched earth policy, and shah Abbas left to Ottomans lands with no population, so that they had no food and other supplies. Now Fadix claims that the resettlement targeted Armenian population and that the Armenian population constituted a majority before the resettlement. He fails to cite any sources on the population of Nakhichevan, specifying the number of Muslim and Armenian population. He cites some sources about the number of Armenian people resettled from Armenia and claims that this is a proof that Armenians were in majority in Nakhichevan as well. We only know for sure that Armenians living in the town of Julfa were resettled to Isfahan, but there’s no info about the population of entire Nakhichevan. Please see below my source about this event, this is the article about the Azeri Turkic tribe Kengerli from encyclopedia Iranica, which is considered one of the most authoritative sources about Iranian history:

Yet another important Kangarlu leader during Safavid times was Maqsáud Sultan Kangarlu, who is on Eskandar Monæi's list of the great amirs of the reign of Shah Abbas I (p. 1085). Shortly after the Persian capture of Erivan, in June 1604, he was appointed governor of Nakhjavan, north of the Aras river. But when, later that year, Ottoman forces threatened the area, Shah Abbas ordered Maqsáud Sultan to evacuate the entire population of the Nakhjavan region (including the Armenians of Jolfa, who, in the following year, were transplanted to Isfahan) to Qaraja Dag (Arasbaran) and Dezmar (Eskandar Monshi, pp. 656, 668).

Note: entire population including the Armenians of Jolfa, and not entire Armenian population, including Armenians of Julfa. And also:

Many Kangarlu settled north of the Aras river, probably in around 1500, when the Ustajlu moved into Azerbaijan. In 1809, J. M. Jouannin, described these Kangarlu as "a small tribe established in Persian Armenia, on the shores of the Aras, and numbering up to four or five thousand individuals" (p. 459). In 1921, M. H. Valili Baharlu wrote that there were Kangarlu around Gökchay, Javanshir and Shusha (pp. 61ff.). Many of these are undoubtedly the descendants of Kangarlu who were forced to move south of the Aras river by Shah Abbas I in 1604, and were then allowed to return to their original grazing grounds by Shah Abbas II (r. 1642-1666) in an attempt to repopulate the frontier regions of his realm.

Today, there is a clan of the Haji Alilu tribe of Qaraja Dag by the name of Kangarlu. In 1960, it comprised some 25 households (Iranian Army Files). There is also a village by the name of Kangarlu 24 kms to the north of Meshginshahr, in the same general area (Razmara, p. 429). These are probably the descendants of Kangarlu who were moved to Qaraja Dag in 1604 and remained there.

As you can see from the above source both Muslim and Armenian population was resettled and nobody was specifically targeted. I suggested to include the compromise version that Shah Abbas ordered resettlement of the entire population of Nakhichevan, without going in detail if the majority were Muslim or Armenian. Fadix insists that we should say that Armenians were in majority in Nakhichevan before the resettlement. Grandmaster 19:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix' perspective

Hi Francis. This is a very simple issue. First, I never requested to place that Armenians were a majority before Abbas deported the population, but that according to some authors the deportation was specifically directed against the Armenians and they were the prime targets and that this deportation contributed to the 'minorization' of the Armenian population in what is considered their historic homeland(Nakhichevan is on the Armenian plateau). Grandmaster has referred mostly to Iranian authors to support his point, as I see his main problem in Safavit article is what he considers as their biases, but here they automatically become the truth. But the fact is that only some Iranian authors consider that there was no indiscriminate deportation(and hardly any Western scholars), I would presume it is because of the crimes perpetrated against the Armenians and they don't want to make of it as a Muslim vs Christian thing. But another thing is sure and that it is that the very large majority of sources present this cases as the Armenians being the prime target. Ye'or the Israeli author reports. Arakel, the writer of the time reports ubduction of Armenian children, and condition of Armenian deportations in which a large part of the deportees died in the process. Only in 1604-1605, there is a recorded 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians(frpm Persian sources) having been moved, and I have seen sources that goes even as far as 350,000.

He claims that the Tartars or other Muslims were targeted just as badly, this defy logic and is not documented in any works. Armenians were forcedly converted under Abbas to Islam to escape this deportation, and others were able to hide, so that only after Gulestan Treaty according to some sources had the Armenians become a slight minority.

Here are some sources I have provided and I have offered to provide more, and I think that I have provided enought so that info be preserved but Grandmaster will go on forever.

Taking Nakhichevan as a whole, in its pick, the population jumped to 150,000, it was its most important period, after the 13th century it was replaced, in 14th century, it droped to about half of its prior population, it lost its statue, at 15th century it was retaken over by Armenians from the vicinities of Van, and after the desertion of Ani, people moved there. Julfa alone represented a significant portion of the entire population. The closest to the Abbas period Grandmater came with with any referrence to the population was more than 200 years, while I provided data which covered that period.

For the next four centuries, Armenians, who had begun their dispersion after the fall of Ani and the Seljuk Turkish invasions in the eleventh century, continued to emigrate. In the meantime, Persia ( Iran) experienced a revival under the Shi'i Safavids, who became the adversaries of the Sunni Ottomans. From 1501 until 1639, the two fought each other periodically in Armenia. Armenians were uprooted during these wars, and, in 1604, some 250,000 Armenians were forcibly transferred by Shah 'Abbas to Iran. By the seventeenth century, the Armenians had become a minority in parts of their historic lands. The merchants of Julfa in Nakhichevan were among those who were brought to Iran by Shah 'Abbas; he moved them to a suburb of Isfahan where they built the New Julfa community. The support of 'Abbas and subsequent shahs enabled the Armenians to expand Iran's trade with India, China, Russia, and Western Europe. These merchants helped to make the Persian Gulf an important trade center. An Ethnohistorical Dictionary of the Russian and Soviet Empires by James S. Olson, Lee Brigance Pappas, Nicholas C. J. Pappas. p. 44

The fact of the matter is that Grandmaster want me to 'prove' that most of the population in the Armenian Plateau pre-Abbas were Armenians, which is totally ridiculous. Even if we take the 250,000 Armenians deported from 1604 to 1605 alone, it clearly shows that Grandmasters claim doesn't make sense. According to the The Soviet Union: Facts, Descriptions, Statistics, published in 1929, there were during that period(the end of the 20s) 105,100 people living in Nakhichevan, while it is true that the Armenians were evacuated from there, Nakhichevan recieved its own flow of refugees from Armenia, but for the sake of taking the Muslim population alone to compare lets take this figure. A region mapping for pre-abbas distributing evenly the Armenian population in the Armenian plateau, only the 250,000 Armenians evacuated doesn't make sense when considering that Muslims too have been evacuated. There is no decree any such orders or records or reports of a discriminate deportation of Muslims too in the Armenian plateau. The most precise information Grandmaster came up with is the cases of the Kangarlu who were at the shore of the Arax. This is something pretty much known as Persia used the shores as a military camp and after the fall as his own source document they returned back anyway. If there was any such massive Muslim deportation as Grandmaster report, why is there no record about it? There are records for the Armenians, and even to a lesser extent of Georgians, but nothing other than few references about few tribs or some villages along the Arax river.

I have done my homework and documented this cases while Grandmaster presented few referrences from Iranica which himself in the past questionned its credibility. We can't just set the credibility of a source based on whatever or not they support our position.

I also claimed that just before Abbas, Nakhichevan population was mostly Armenian and claimed that its population was often equaled with 'Armenians.' This too, I have documented.

Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population. He settled some 13,000 families in the silk-growing northern provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan bordering on the Caspian. (Source: The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), p. 39)

Why is there no report of such a discriminate resstling of Muslims too, like I said, there are records of Georgians so we can not call this Armenian biases in some way or another. Linda K. Steinmann in her work Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629, Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987), pp. 68-74 covers the evacuation of the Armenians, and to a lesser extent elsewhere of Georgians, but nowhere does she say anything about any evacuation of Tartars. Ina Baghdiantz McCabe covers the evacuation in her work The Shah's Silk for Europe's Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530-1750), I don't see anything about Tartars being evacuated or an undiscriminate evacuation, or any reference of an important Tartar population in Nakhichevan. Josepho Barbaro while visiting the devastation reports destruction of Armenian towns and its desertion, not Tartars. Sir William Ouseley during his visit in 1812 has only discribed the destruction of the Armenian city during the evacuation.

Here again another documentation on my claim that population was often equaled with 'Armenian' just before Abbas.

In 1603 Shah 'Abbas, the great Safavid ruler of Persia, sent an expedition into Armenia in answer to the appeals of the inhabitants for assistance against the Turks. The death of the Sultan Mahmud III in December 1603 and the succession of his son Ahmed, a boy of twelve, opened the way to an easy conquest in the course of which both retreating Turks and invading Persians plundered the Armenians. The Persian victory was followed by a forced emigration of the population to the Shah's capital of Isfahan. « That dragon of hell, Shah Abbas, nourished from the beginning in the ways of the serpent, saw with an eye of envy the prosperity of the Christians. » So Arakel of Tauriz, the seventeenth-century Armenian historian, puts it, and it was indeed the skill of new... Armenia was left desolates... (A Seventeenth-Century typological cycle of paintings in the Armenian cathedal at Julfa, T. S. R. Boase, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 13, No. 3/4 pp.323-324)

D.M. Lang writes that one of the two major reasons of the deportation was: ...he desired to make use of the industrial and commercial talents of the Armenians... (Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 622) Julfa population was so important that he separate it from Nakhichevan as a different entity.

How does this apply to nomadic tribs?

Another one: In order to secure his peripheral western frontiers from possible Armenian-Ottoman collusions, Shah Abbas found it expedient in 1604-5 to depopulate those areas and distribute the Armenian population through Iran. ...Shah Abbas had still another reason for moving Armenians to his real: he hoped to benefit from their great artistic and commercial skills. (The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), pp.128-129)

Where does it say anything about other groups, and how the reasons given applied to Muslims?

I have documented about up until Gulestan: The Treaty signed at Gulestan (in Karabakh) was not the optimum in Russian eyes: Moslem khans, vassals of Persia, retained Nakhichevan and Yerevan with their predominantly Christian-Armenian populations. (Alexander the First, a Reappraisal A Reappraisal Second book by Ludmila Evreinov p. 252) This might be wrong, but it is documented that after Gulestan many Muslim were restled, even one of Grandmaster sources document it for Erivan. Those of course for him are exclude materials, but when the contrary happens later, it is of course include material.

Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani-populated enclave within Armenia that is administratively part of Azerbaijan, from which the Armenian inhabitants had been expelled in 1604. (Democracy and Nationalism in Armenia, Peter Rutland, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 5 (1994) pp. 841-842)

Where does it say anything about the expulsion of the Muslim population? Besides, one of his points doesn't make sense at all, at least for Julfa, it had the only bridge north of Tabriz and the other was controled by Armenians too, even considering those, can there have been no indescriminate decision.

And I have more sources about those, and I offer to present them. Grandmaster continious attempt to exclude the word Armenian from this article is in my sense distruptive. Fad (ix) 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion relating to the mediation here

Just a comment on Fadix’s comment. Iranica is an authoritative source, but it has its proiranian biases, which show in some articles, written by Iranian authors. But most of the articles are written by authoritative western scholars, and the article to which I was referring was written by Pierre Oberling, an authoritative scholar in his field. Fadix claimed that “Only Armenians and to some extent Georgians were targeted in the evacuation”, and “Refering to the Malik period to the Nakhichevani population is similar as talking about Armenians”, but we can see from the source I cited above that this is not true. Also, Fadix’s own sources claim that “Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population”. If the population of the frontier areas was not exclusively Armenian, it is obvious, that nobody was specifically targeted and the entire population, both Muslim and Armenian, equally suffered from this measure. Grandmaster 04:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Fadix says "with Armenians reportedly being the prime targets". - FrancisTyers · 08:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the statements he made in discussion. But as his source says the purpose was depopulation of the area, which means that the whole population and not some part of it was targeted. Grandmaster 09:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

One of his sources says this "Nakhichevan, an Azerbaijani-populated enclave within Armenia that is administratively part of Azerbaijan, from which the Armenian inhabitants had been expelled in 1604." — now I'm quite willing to concede that other ethnic groups along with Armenians were deported, but you're going to have to bring sources to bear. - FrancisTyers · 09:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course what would be ideal is for one (or both) of you to bring some demographic information for that period to the table. Not huge swathes of text though, just a breakdown in percentage terms. - FrancisTyers · 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that source is not an academic historical one, but rather a political study, and it contradicts my source, which describes resettlement of a Turkic tribe Kengerli from Nakhichevan to Qaraja-dag in Iran. There are no numbers on demographics of the region, that’s why I proposed to say that the population was resettled without connecting the process to a specific ethnic group. Grandmaster 09:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, my answer is long, I appologize. The only relevant information Grandmaster presented were Muslim tribs along the Arax whom were evacuated, and even according to his source were permited back later anyways. There are informations from primary sources of between 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians being evacuated only for the years 1604-05. What Grandmaster propose is not documented anywhere other then Iranica, and even Iranica does't support him. When an Armenian scholar is cited in regards to Azeris affair he dismiss it and want another source, according to his logic an Iranian scholar in regard to the Armenian deportation in Persia too alone is not a support of his claim. It is pretty much documented that there has been two stade of the depopulation, the first was volontuary, the second was forced, this is when Abbas ordered the burning and the destruction of the Armenian towns to force them to move, there never was such a policy against the Muslims(Persians, Tartars etc.), do you imagine the Safavits who were Turkic and Persian burning Persian and Turkic villages and pushing their entire population out? Now, the question is, if there were as well hundreds of thousands of Muslims deported too just like the Armenians, where are the figures? How come the large majority of sources only talk about the Armenians? If you have access to a database search for Abbas Deportation, and you will see the sort of results you will have. All the justifications provided by Persian authorities or scholars, only one can apply to Muslims and party, only those on the Arax river and this is because it was a geographic border and used as a military camp. Even the observers after Abbas observed the destruction and desertion (I have referred to two) of Armenian towns not Muslim. And it is rather surprising that now he must support that all were deported indescrimently, when some times ago when we brought Abbas depopulation he seemed to not even know about it, but he find it convinient now to just claim that Armenians were not a target in particular. Even this Iranian site which I qualify apologistic writes: European sources of the seventeenth century portray Abbes as a great benefactor of the Armenians, who secured them from the Turks and who made them wealthy in New Julfa, Armenian historians of the time, however, such as Arakel of Tabriz, view Shah `Abbes' deportations and the Turko Iranian conflict in Armenia as a major catastrophe, during which the land and the people suffered terribly, with the resulting depopulation making the Armenians a minority in most of their historic land. `Abbes' policies did indeed have varying short-term effects, in the long term, however, the forced deportations established the basis for the Armenian diaspora in Iran and India, communities which, as we will see, were to play an important role in the Armenian cultural and political revival of the nineteenth century. . It is really anti-accademic do search over the web every single little sources that might support ones position without reading all the available materials. McCabe in her book covers the harsh deportation of the Armenians in Winter and the forced conversion of many. The author also covers the continuation of the policy of Abbas from his grandfather Tahmasp, who deported mostly the Armenian women and children, when most men have been killed or converted to Islam. The subsequent deportation and convertion and replacement of the population by Muslim for Grandmaster doesn't worth being included even when documented, but vehemently was after citing the Russian policy of bringing back the Armenians back to the Armenian plateau. This sort of exclusion is totally misleading it creats the illusion that Armenians always lived outside of the plateau and that the Armenian plateau was not the Armenian plateau but somewhere where Azeris Tartar were living and that the bad bad Russians resstled Armenians there. And here worst, he is obstinently refusing to admit that Abbas specifically targetted the Armenians, and to do this he back it up with materials very few in numbers and that which do not contradict my proposition in anyway. Fad (ix) 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, the source that you presented is not neutral, it’s Armenian. But even that source says the same thing as the sourtce that I presented.

In the summer of 1604, at the news of an Ottoman counteroffensive, Abbas laid waste much of the territory between Kars and Ani and deported its Armenians and Muslims into Iranian Azerbaijan. Abbas was sure that the Ottomans would not launch an attack so close to winter and according to some sources, demobilized most of his army in the fall. The Ottomans, however, did advance, catching the shah unprepared. Orders went out from Abbas to forcibly remove the entire population residing in the regions of Bayazid, Van, and Nakhichevan and to carry out a scorched-earth policy.

OK, I hope you understand that "entire population" means everybody, both Muslims and Armenians. Now if you don’t have reliable information about the demographics of the region in 1604, I don’t think there’s a point in further argument. Grandmaster 18:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no one that claims this author is biased, he is one of the only specializing in records of the region and is even cited by Azeris scholars. Again, I request you to stop using his ethnicity to dismiss him, that work there was written for an Iranian source and edited, the author is known to criticise Armenian and Azeris scholars for their biases, he is as much neutral as one can get. For each source you have provided, I have provided at least 5 which disagree. Can you name any populated Muslim town which was burned to the ground? Urdubad still maintains fondations of the period, while Julfa was placed to the ground and only some relics remains. You are unbelievable, Gransmater, I really attempted to work with you, but you always act like a warrior pushing your POV. I am tired of repeating myself. The intention to depopulate the Armenians was to starve the economy of the Armenian plateau under threats that the Ottoman will reclame the place, who controled the economy? Will you be also denying that Julfa was controlling the entire economy of that region and that marchandises were passing from that bridge from East to West? Can you document the burning of Urdubad? Can you? I have read from a translation of 4 Muslim records of the period, never such a thing is mentioned. You are assuming, while I can provide the specific deportation of the Armenians in Winter, their forced conversion, the deaths of countless numbers of people who had to walk on foot on winter, the only record you came up with is some tribs along the Arax river. And what would be your story about the Grandfather of Abbas who also deportated the Armenians, was it also the deportation of the Muslims too? Nakhichevan was on the Armenian plateau, both of the bridges connecting the East and the West were controlled by Armenians, one was on Julfa even a section Urdubad was maintained by Armenians before Abbas. Now, it is up to you to provide anything which will document that there was any substancial Muslim population in Nakhichevan, I documented that from the three regions only in 1604 to 1605 between 250,000 to 300,000 Armenians were deported and that they were deported for various reasons which could not have been and were not applied to Muslims. Lets see what else you will find if I also document the other decrees of deportations from the 16th to 18th century. If we add in this article the reasons given to depopulate the region, it will be made clear that the targets were the Armenians and that population indeed was equaled with Armenians. If Armenians were not the prime target, why were they the only covered in most of scholarly journals and books? Why is he blamed by various Western scholars as being one of the prime responsables of the minorization of the Armenians? Where are the records of any massive Muslim population, how could there be that while the figures of Armenians deported, the numbers of families deported in various Persian cities are included in primary sources, nothing is said about the Muslims? I have provided figures you have provided nothing. it is up to you to document that and explain where are the rercords. That much people don't just get deported without any single relevent materials or decree. Also, we know that after the volontary order, there has been a forced one against the Armenians, this is also recorded. Is there any evidences that any forced decree was given against the Muslim? If yes! It is up to you to document that, as long as you can not provide any paper that Muslims have faced both the volontary evacuation and the forced one, the primary targets as reported in the very large majority of sources, were Armenians. Fad (ix) 18:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You’ve got two sources that say that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled, including the one provided by you. Do you understand that the words “entire population” mean both Muslims and Armenians, as well as all other ethnicities living in the region? I don’t need to provide anything, you want to include in the article that Armenians were targeted, you should cite statistics on Nakhichevan population, because “entire population” does not mean Armenians only. Grandmaster 19:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Look Grandmaster, how many time shall I tell you that Nakhichevan back then WAS NOT present day Nakhichevan? There is no geographic delimitation between Nakhichevan AND Armenia, BOTH are on the Armenian plateau. What was called Nakhichevan back then was not including a large section with a considerable Muslim population who were hardly affected by any depopulation, because your assumption about both Nakhichevan(the town and its serounding) being the same is WRONG. You are assuming that there was a Nakhichevan a Nakhichevan with the current border at that time. Have you not wondered why authors makes a distinction between Nakhichevan, Julfa, Urdubad and were and are cited individually? Armenians were deported from the Ararat plain, including Vaïots Zor, Sevan, Lori, Chirakhan, Abharan etc. dilimitations back then were very different than now. Then the extention of the decision turned around Nakhichevan, the serounding and including of what is now the capital of Nakhichevan, Julfa and its seroundings, can you tell me there that in any of those places Armenians were NOT a majority? What do you want me to do more? Most Armenians were concentrated there, because of the Bridges that they were controling and commerce, while Muslims were distributed with a homogenious distribution. Herzing in his work about the deportation, even though he reject the thesis of planned decision, makes it clear that the regions and the depopulation mainly affected Armenians. You can take this the way you want, there is no way that you could claim that Muslims and Armenians have been targeted as much, because Nakhichevan (and I hope I won't need again to explain you that I am not talking about the autonomous region) was mostly Armenian, and once all those regions that Armenians were concentrated in were emptied, there can't be much Armenian remaining.

Another thing that is important, and it is that, while after the depopulation Armenians were distributed in Iran and South, the Muslims had the choice to go where they wanted, Eastern and later return, while various Armenians had to remain in Iran to escape the capital tax and various other factors which in no way could have been applied to Muslims. This too is pretty much documented. Fad (ix) 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, ok, I have a suggestion, how about we give specifics. We say how many Armenians were deported and we say what the total population was? - FrancisTyers · 20:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So far Fadix has not provided any figures for population of Nakhichevan in 1604. Grandmaster 20:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Francis, here the problem arises from Grandmaster ignorance of the region, I still keep repeating him that we are not talking about the same Nakhichevan, he still keep the same misconception. Like I said, Armenians were depopulated from Ararat plain, including Vaïots Zor, Sevan, Lori, Chirakhan, Abharan etc. dilimitations back then were very different than now. Then the extention of the decision turned around Nakhichevan, the serounding and including of what is now the capital of Nakhichevan, Julfa and its seroundings, not what is the autonomious republic of Nakhichevan, but rather the section where most Armenians resided while Muslims were distributed homogeniously, but more concentrated on the river side, but those returned anyway. There is no statistics of that region, because Grandmaster assumption is wrong, if we take Nakhichevan(which again, I highlight is not the same as the autonomious republic) and Julfa, the Armenians were concentrated there and their seroundings, so the depopulation of those there could only be equaled to the word Armenians. Julfa was the most important center, and it was an armenian city, with the bridge, is he claiming that there was any town in that section that had a population of even half of those in Julfa? Julfa population was near 30,000 tens of thousands more serounding it and the subsquenent towns and Nakhichevan. Urdubad in the second half of the 19th century had only few thousands of people, the entire autonomous republic of Nakhichevan in Russian records of 1929 I have presented the population was only slightly over 100,000, and here we are talking about the whole region. Fad (ix) 21:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is demagoguery -- it doesn't really matter whether present-dat Naxcivan Autonomous Republic coincides 100% with the 17th century Naxcivan region - neither does Karabakh, etc. The fact is that Naxcivan is an ancient toponym, has been the name of that region for centuries and millenia, has deliminated a certain region and always included Julfa, Naxcivan itself, Ordubad, as well as Babek, etc. The historical accounts are clear that: 1) Shah Abbas resettled all kinds of people -- not only Armenians, but other Christians, such as Georgians, remnants of Albans, and of course Azerbaijani Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims. 2) Armenians that were from Naxcivan itself were from Julfa, and indeed, it's population was only about 30,000, and even if Armenians made up majority, that means maybe 25,000 - that's all what has been resettled to Iran. Yet how many Muslims and other Christians were resettled -- obviously, much greater numbers. 3) Even Armenian chroniclers admit that some Armenians immediately after being resettled to Iran returned (run) back back. Hence, it is hard to understand what is all the fuss about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdilBaguirov (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting us nowhere. I appreciate the time you're taking, but lets try and keep things as concise as possible. Now, this question is for Fadix only. In your text you state "Armenians reportedly the prime targets", now are you arguing that: 1. within a greater population specifically Armenians were deported, or 2. are you arguing that the population of Nakhichevan was overwhelmingly Armenian and they were deported, or 3. are you arguing that the population of Nakhichevan was largely Armenian and they were deported or 4. are you arguing that within a greater population, a large number of Armenians were deported, along with a smaller number of other groups, who were allowed to return later?

Please try and keep the reply to three sentences or less, with as much source material as you like. I'm interested in sources, and not analysis here. I'd appreciate it if you'd both fill in the source list below. Also, stop with the presuming what other people are trying to do. Before you post, preview it, and remove and references to the other participant, it doesn't help the situation. - FrancisTyers · 22:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is long, but it is only documentation and what the documents say. Arakel de Tauriz 17th-18th century Armenian writter wrote after Shah Abbas there was not much left of Armenians and that all the young people gradually became Muhammadan and today it would be difficult to find two Armenian Christians in all these beautiful plains where their fathers were sent to farm. Also, from his description the Persian troups only changed policies onces they left Nakhichevan for 'Ottoman Nakhichevan' and Julfa. He also claims that Abbas depopulation contributed to the replacement of the Armenians by Muslim in their own homeland. Those are documented by Arakel de Tauriz, if you want the quotations, I will provide them.

They followed the Arax river down to Julfa, the geographic frontier from Eastern and Western Armenia, where from East to West South to North all considerable Armenian towns were situated.

The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries by R. W. Ferrier, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), p. 39 quote which I have referred, when quoting the rest, it is obvious that the population in question are Armenians. Here let requote it and the rest of it.

Shah Abbas devastated his frontier areas, which included parts of Armenia, as a defensive measure and so displaced nearly all the population. He settled some 13,000 families in the silk-growing northern provinces of Gilan and Mazanderan bordering on the Caspian. Many of these died, unused to the pestilential climate. He also settled a group in the capital whom he encouraged to trade on his behalf by extending credit, lowering taxation, granting religious freedom, and bestowing privilages. Those in Isfahan prospered and eventually became powerful, even an indispensable, factor in Persian economic life in the seventeenth century. By assisting the Armenian marchants Shah Abbas...

It is clear it is about the Armenians, RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Due to mass deportations of the Armenian population by Shah Abbas in the seventeenth century, most Armenian place names had already been replaced by Turkic toponyms when Armenia became a part of the USSR in 1921.

And Nakhichevan true origine is an example, I think you have followed that discussion. Even the myth about Noah has been made an Azeris belief.

This I have already quoted, ((Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 32, No. 3 (1969) p. 622)) but posting other pieces from it: His motives in removing the Armenians townsfolk to central Iran were twofold: he wished to discourage future invasions by a scorched earth policy in the frontier region around Ararat; and he desired to make use of industrial and commercial talents of the Armenians... Ararat is on North of Nakhichevan, and all along down following the Arax was where the Armenians were concentrated.

Like I previously wrote, the Georgians had also felt victim, after Luarsab death under Abbas, Abbas has destroyed Kakheti, killed 60,000 people and deported 100,000. It's like claiming Georgians were not the prime targets who were brought in Persia dragged in the army. (for more information on this see: Georgia and the Fall of the Safavī Dynasty, D. M. Lang, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 14, No. 3, Studies Presented to Vladimir Minorsky by His Colleagues and Friends (1952), pp. 523-539).

I already documented that at least 250,000 Armenians were moved only from 1604-05, and Arakel testimony confirms that only while in the Armenian section, 'Ottoman Nakhichevan and Julfa' had Abbas changed policy and used force to remove the population. If you want me to quote his testimonies about Armenians hidding and being tracked, killed etc., I will. Beside, the section the Ottoman recontrolled was repopulated by the Muslim population anyway.

I am ready to make a compromise over this, and change it for: "In 1604, Shah Abbas I, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy . He forced most of the local population, the Armenians reportedly being the most affected by this policy , to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia . According to many authors this policy is one of the reasons why Armenians had become a minority in parts of what was considered their historic homeland (Nakhichevan being in the Armenian plateau included) ."

You ask about how many were allowed back, this is the main point, while there is not documentation that the Muslims who were affected were not allowed back, the Armenians were forced in Persia(all my documentations talk about the Armenians, while the population is moved is documented, only the distribution in Persia of Armenians and Geogians is documented), where they had tax brakes to stay, their towns were destroyed while Abbas build them places to settle. During those periods, a Muslim and a Christian were not taxed equally, which further attracted Armenians to convert. (Many of them converted to Islam, lured by the political and economic advantages offered them by the new faith, The Status of Religious Minorities in Safavid Iran 1617-61, Vera B. Moreen, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1981) p. 129).

We should here make the difference between moving a population while two enemies are fighting and their subsequent return, and the implamentation of a group of the population and also the coversion(forced or volontuary) of part of them, there is no records that the Muslim population from anywhere from those regions affected was distributed in Iran, they just left in the process and later there is no documentation showing that they were forbiden to return. While the moving of the Armenian population had further justifications. And I will not recopy and past the documentation I already posted.

Where are the data on the Muslim population moved? How many? Adil claims that there were much more, is it concievable that much more were moved and distributed in Iran without any documentation on the number of families, decrees etc. as it was the cases for Armenians and Georgians? It is ridiculous for you to document that the non-existing of the documentation means the negative. I am used to scientific methodology, in which the documentation should be brought and if it can't, we can not assume. The moving of the Armenians is documented, with figures, very high figures for that time, there are numbers of families brought in many regions, for example, there is data on the administration of the trade in Gilan and Mazandaran and Abbas issue order to transport 30,000 Georgian and Armenian families from the Western march areas and brought to Mazandaran, this is documented by English factors and other records: (see for example the documentation brought in Shah 'Abbas and the Royal Silk Trade 1599-1629, Linda K. Steinmann, Bulletin (British Society for Middle Eastern Studies), Vol. 14, No. 1 (1987), pp. 68-74

Can we at least settle this, I am ready to accepte that they were reportedly the most affected, are my documentations not showing this? Fad (ix) 19:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Your documentation is not showing this, because we have sources that state that the entire population of Nakhichevan was evacuated. This means that evacuation was indiscriminate. Also you still have not provided any statistics on the population of Nakhichevan in 1604. It’s not possible to say who was affected the most without this information. Grandmaster 19:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

We have not such thing, Arakel confirm by presenting the trajectory, he says 'set out to follow in the tracks of the hordes going to Persia.' Which is the Arax, and down to Julfa. He also referrers to the change of policy once in 'Ottoman Nakhichevan.' Your refferences to Nakhichevan doesn't mean what is now the entire Nakhichevan autonomious republic. You are assuming that Muslim were forced to resstle in Persia as if Muslim were missing in Persia, I documented the Armenian cases, it is for you to document the Muslim cases. Saying that you have shown that all the population have been moved doesn't do, since you are assuming the whole Nakhichevan. It is not for me to document a non-existance, I documented, now document. Fad (ix) 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You have not documented anything. Statistics please. Also do you think Bournatian did not know what he was talking about when he said that the entire population of Nakhichevan was resettled? Grandmaster 20:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And you have provided the statistics of Muslim moved? Even the province of Nakhichevan didn't included Urdubad? The region of Nakhichevan doesn't equal to what is now the Nakhichevan autonomous republic. He separated the province, and there is also the Fortress of Nakhichevan which was destroyed. All are localities and can not be equaled with what you affirm. The fact of the matter is, that we have statistics nof Armenians moved from 1604 to 1605, we have statistics of families incorporated in Iran, we have informations about the destruction of Julfa brought to the ground. Where the Muslims were resstled, how many Muslims were resstled, where? How is it that the very large majority of sources only talk about Armenians? What you want me to do is to prove a none-existance, while we only report what is documented. We know from documentations that those most affected were Armenians, we know about the destruction of Julfa and have various statistics about the Armenians moved. Until you do not provide the records, statistics on the number of med, or families resettled, we can do nothing about it. Each records I have provided includes reasons for the distribution of the Armenians, and those reasons could not have been applied to Muslims. Fad (ix) 20:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, one last time, please provide the statistics or leave the topic alone. I don’t insist that the population was predominantly Muslim, Armenian or otherwise. I suggest to avoid that, and say that the entire population was resettled and that’s it. If you are not happy with that, then go ahead and cite figures for Armenian and Muslim population. Grandmaster 21:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No! Sorry, I rely on documents, you are using insinuations. One can not prove the non-existance of something, you don't even have records on the number of Muslims moved and we have only records on the number of people resetled in Iran, and they are only Armenian. What you are requesting is like requesting the deletion of the entry about Atheism on the bases that they have no document documenting the non-existence of a god. The only record we have about the exact trajectory taken was given by Arakel, and we know most Armenians were concentrated there, and every sources I have provided when providing figures of the number of people ressetled, only present the number of Armenians. I doubt that it could be more implicit than that. Usually, we only include what is mentioned in documents, here you want the exclusion of what is mentioned under the basis that I don't provide documentation about the figure of other groups, this imply those documentation exist. I can edit every article on Misplaced Pages on this basis by claiming that a black witch involved there is not documented. I don't think that everyone would require any evidences that the deportation of Irish from their homeland by the Brits, was targeted the Irish. Again, I will take your addage, Grandmaster, one last time, where have those Muslim been moved? Where are the records on the number of Muslim moved? Fad (ix) 21:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There no numbers of Muslims and Armenians moved. And I already told you where the population of Nakhichevan was moved, what’s the point of asking it again and again?

Yet another important Kangarlu leader during Safavid times was Maqsud Sultan Kangarlu, who is on Eskandar Monshi's list of the great amirs of the reign of Shah Abbas I (p. 1085). Shortly after the Persian capture of Erivan, in June 1604, he was appointed governor of Nakhjavan, north of the Aras river. But when, later that year, Ottoman forces threatened the area, Shah Abbas ordered Maqsud Sultan to evacuate the entire population of the Nakhjavan region (including the Armenians of Jolfa, who, in the following year, were transplanted to Isfahan) to Qaraja Dag (Arasbaran) and Dezmar (Eskandar Monshi, pp. 656, 668).

Note, that Nakhichevan was a separate administrative division and had its own Turkic governor. By the orders of shah Abbas he resettled the entire population of the region to Qaraja Dag and Dezmar. Since you don’t know how many of the resettled population were Armenians and how many of them were Muslim, we have nothing to talk about. There’s no basis for the edit you are proposing. End of story. Grandmaster 08:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing hour

Ok, here are your two versions. I think both could do with a copyedit, but first, just for my benefit, could you line up the sources, yes I know you've cited them above, but it would help clarify things here. Note, this is not an endorsement of either version, they both have their flaws, which will be ironed out as we continue... - FrancisTyers · 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• "In 1604, Shah Abbas I, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy . He forced most of the local population, the Armenians being reportedly the prime targets , to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia . According to many authors this policy is one of the reasons why Armenians had become a minority in parts of what was considered their historic homeland (Nakhichevan being in the Armenian plateau included) ."
  1. source here
  2. source here
  3. source here
  4. source here

• "In 1604, Shah Abbas I, concerned that the lands of Nakhichevan and the surrounding areas would pass into Ottoman hands, decided to institute a scorched earth policy . He forced most of the local population, including skilled Armenian workers , to leave their homes and move deeper into Persia ."
  1. Encyclopedia Iranica. Kangarlu
  2. source here
  3. source here

False attribution and misquoting of Georgian historian, Prof. Avtandil Menteshashvili

The version on which a certain user insists says the following:

"According to Georgian historian, Prof. Avtandil Menteshashvili, ethnic Armenians once comprised over 40% of the population in Nakhichevan, but their numbers slowly began to descrease due to emigration. By 1987, only two Armenian villages remained in the area. "

To this, I've added the following clarification:

". However, according to all relevant censuses, Muslim (Azerbaijani) population has been in majority and was constantly decreased due to wars and immigration with simultaneous influx of ethnic Armenians from Persia and Ottoman Empire. Indeed, writing in middle of the 19th century, a British intelligence officer, diplomat and prominent researcher notes: "The Armenian population of Erivan and Nakhshevan, although numerically unimportant, deserves a brief notice." "

This user removed it on the grounds that Muslim majority is not questioned. Furthermore, he did not answer to the "clarification needed -- in which years was this true?" request about the ambiguous and highly unscholarly statement: "ethnic Armenians once comprised over 40% of the population in Nakhichevan, but their numbers slowly began to descrease due to emigration. By 1987, only two Armenian villages remained in the area". Obviously, the period during which Armenians might have constituted 40% should be identified. As my quote from Maj-Gen. Rawlinson shows, it is an incorrect to make such assumptions, and 40% Armenians in Naxcivan seems highly suspicious and in no legitimate sources did I see it. Moreover, there was no census done in 1987 -- the last Soviet census was done in 1989, whilst the previous one was done in 1979. Hence, it is strange to see the reference to 1987.

And indeed, upon checking the reference, it became clear that the Georgian prof. Avtandil Menteshashvili never said himself or claimed anything like this! Instead, on pages 45-46, the source of the information, Prof. Menteshashvili is only re-phrasing (and making it abundantly clear) Armenian claims as repeated by a British Parliamentarian:

"Thus, after his visit to NKR in April 1998 being a member of the delegation “Christian solidarity”, the member of the House of Lords of the Great Britain Mr.Gilton described in his memorandum 15 reasons, under which the people of NKR will never accept the form of government of Nagorni Karabakh from Azerbaijan. Here are three of them: <...> · it is still vivid the memory of persecutions of Armenians in Nakhichevan where in 1917 Armenians made over 40% of the total number of the population, whereas in 1987 only two Armenian villages were remained in Nakhichevan.9"

Moreover, the article goes on to give yet another obscure citation to this figures, “Centraljnaia Azia i Kavkaz” N1, 1998, pp. 131-135 (Russ)". The citation is by no means reliable -- it omits a lot of important information, such as the precise page of the information (currently, it probably shows all the pages on which the article was published), the authors name and the title of the article. I went into the archives of this journal, and did not find any such article or information: http://www.ca-c.org/journal-table-97-98.shtml In fact, I've searched all four (4) editions published in 1998, as well as the last edition in 1997 -- nothing! I've initiated a Google and Russian searching engines queries, and again, nothing.

Thus, not only is this information unrealiable and sloppy, but whoever inserts this reference to Misplaced Pages's Naxcivan page is also significantly mishandling it and misquoting the Georgian professor, who never said it and simply cited someone else. Imagine if one cites Hitler, and then someone attributes Hitler's words to him or uses that citation as an endorsement of Hitler's speech -- an extreme example, but that's what was done by this user.

I will get rid of the link and rephrase the quote, without any percentages, and restore my fully-cited, accurate and verifiable (scan of the page available upon request) reference to Henry Rawlinson. --AdilBaguirov 05:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede to this. I'll admit that I skimmed through Menteshashvili's work, so if I missed any information of importance, it was entirely my fault. I apologize. -- Clevelander 10:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I will revert this out, other than Russian resstlment of Armenians, through the century, only the Armenian population was discouraged to remain in Nakhichevan. I don't see how wars affecting the Ottoman and Persian frontiers could have disfaviored the Muslims any more than the Armenians, who not only migrated southern, but that there was a very huge recorded migration of Armenians for elsewhere, even in Europe and America. Fad (ix) 19:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you will bring proof to your assumptions and opinion, I will revert to the cleaned-up version. According to the official 1926 census, Armenians were only 10% of the population, by the way, far cry from "over 40%" that Armenians claim for 1917 (when no census took place, only some estimates). --AdilBaguirov 21:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, like I said, you can remove this Georgian historian for all I care, but you did more than removing this Georgian historian, you added things which are full of insinuations. The wars affected much more Armenians than Muslims, here above we were talking about Abbas, but there are various other instances which I will present, previously Abbas Grandfather, the Ottoman placed Sunnis and removed the Armenians, the same Sunni, which later the Persians started killing. In 12th century when the Mongols came, Julfa was entirly destroyed to the ground, it was rebuild later. I don't see how you can claim something like this when beside the Armenians the rest of the population serounding all the region were Muslim(Turkmens, Tartars, other Turkic tribs, Persians, Kurds etc.), how could the war have affected the Tartars, when both sides were removing the others Turkic population to place theirs, was there 'others' Armenians to be placed? No, Armenians were just pushed downwards or emmigrated all together. So, demographically speaking, only the Armenians ration could have decreased. Only was it under Russian rules that Armenians were advantaged, and only slightly, because they had to replace the Armenians that moved to Georgia and elsewhere. This is unbelievable, how all of you finger Russians ressetlement of Armenians back, when for centuries under Ottoman or Persian rules Armenians were removed from the Armenian plateau, many Armenians under Ottoman rules were removed from Nakhichevan and brought to the West as far as Constantinople, evem Smyrna had recieved its share of Nakhichevani Armenians. Fad (ix) 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

On khachkars destruction

On the Naxcivan page, in the bottom, there is a section of Disputes. There, at length, there is a lot of accusations against Azerbaijan by Armenia(ns) of destroying khachkars. Whilst nothing has been definitively proven yet, there is also another side to the story, which is definitive and accurate. Here's what I've added to the page:

"Despite all the accusations, independent investigation by Armenian journalists shows that Armenians themselves are engaged in destruction of khachkars and other historical heritage. - see: HETQ Online (Armenia), "We Need to Defend Ourselves from Ourselves", by Edik Baghdasaryan, April 10, 2006. "

The user deleted it on the grounds that it has nothing to do with Naxcivan. Actually, as made clear by this English-language investigative article by Armenian journalists and published in Armenia, it has everything to do with Naxcivan, which it even references to in the article, and shows that 1) Armenians themselves have been destroying what they claim to cherish and 2) lends some credibility to the fact that the what the video and pictures Armenians have shown on the Internet are probably Armenian workers/police/soldiers destroying khachkars on the territory of Armenia, possible Zangezur (Sisian, Megri, Kafan regions).

Hence, this quote must remain in the page. --AdilBaguirov 05:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to some compromise. If it is to be included, I believe that it should be revised. As it stands now, the way it's worded seems misleading, as if Misplaced Pages is telling the reader that "yes, there is solid proof that the Armenians destroyed their own khachkars in Nakhichevan." It should also be placed under the section regarding the destruction of the khachkars instead of starting a completely new section for it. I cleaned it up a bit and reworded it like so:

According to Armenian journalist, Edik Baghdasaryan, destroyed khachkars have emerged in Armenia. Though it is not clear exactly who destroyed these monuments, that fact that they have appeared on Armenian soil implies that the destruction was done by Armenians themselves. "Armenians everywhere have closed ranks to protest against the barbarous destruction of Armenian khachkars by Azerbaijanis in Nakhidjevan," Baghdasaryan said. "But who will protest, who will fight against us, here at home? Perhaps we should appeal to various international organizations and ask them to come and protect our treasures from ourselves?"

I still say that this new addition isn't that relevant. In fact, I would say that this article has a very tangential relation to Nakhichevan (the name itself only comes up in the article twice - the same goes for the word "Azerbaijani"). It seems to me that the point of Mr. Baghdasaryan's piece is that Armenians shouldn't be complaining about the destruction of something they cherish when they haven't been able to take care of it themselves. He does not prove that the Armenians themselves destroyed the khachkars in Nakhichevan nor does it make any outright accusations of such an occurance. Also, nowhere in the article does it state your speculation that the video and pictures that have surfaced on the internet (they actually first appeared on Armenian and Russian television) are probably Armenians destroying khachkars on Armenian territory. For the record, the author doesn't even mention Zangezur (today Syunik). In fact, Syunik, while mountainous, is very green (take an area like its capital, Kapan, for example). By contrast, Nakhichevan is very arid, mountainous, and practically a semi-desert. The group seen in the video footage destroying the khachkars seem to be located in a very mountainous, desert-like area, thus giving credence to the event taking place in Nakhichevan. If the monuments were destroyed in the Zangezur-Syunik area like you stated, then what happened to those khachkars in Nakhichevan that were reported to have vanished by the IWPR and Scottish traveler Steven Sim (as cited in this article)? And if this destruction happened in Nakhichevan, wouldn't the Armenians be noticed by the government of Azerbaijan? The Armenians who once lived there certainly could not have destroyed them as no more Armenians live in Nakhichevan. Furthermore, the ruins were found in Yerevan. It would be an incredible task to haul them to this area from either Syunik or Nakhichevan without being noticed (Julfa where the incident was reported to have taken place is quite a distance from Yerevan). Additionally, if the Armenians did indeed destroy their own monuments in either of these two areas just to rile the masses against the Azeris and Azerbaijan, then why would they toss the khachkars in an area where they can be easily found?

Regards, Clevelander 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit is not perfect either and needs additional work. For example, it is clear from Baghdasaryan, that the khachkars in Yerevan were: 1) destroyed by Armenians and not by some vague "not clear exactly who destroyed these monuments" (which leaves at least 1% impression that Azerbaijanis could still have pulled it off, instead of clearly accusing Armenians themselves) and 2) he is clear that those khachkars were brought from elsewhere -- since most khachkars are from south parts of the country (indeed, there are no ancient khachkars near Yerevan), it means they are most likely from Zangezur. And this does lend credibility to my speculation (although once again, everything about this whole affair is a speculation). Secondly, I don't know if you've been to Zangezur and Naxcivan on the border of Iran, such as on the railroad which goes along the entire border of Zangezur with Iran -- where did you see "very green" areas of Zangezur, at least in the western half, that's closer to Naxcivan, or otherwise very different terrain from Naxcivan? The terrain immediately on the border with Iran -- which is crucial, as all photos and videos are, according to Armenians, taken from Iranian side -- is pretty much the same. And it's hard to distinguish which part is Naxcivan and which is Zangezur. BTW, Naxcivan is famous for its apples, apricots, and other fruits (one of its major exports) -- which cannot not grow in abundance in "very arid, mountainous, and practically a semi-desert" areas. The general classifications of those regions are not good in our more specialized discussion -- Naxcivan is very different, depending on the part, like all of Azerbaijan.

While not denying that some allegations are probably correct and indeed many khachkars were taken for either construction needs or other hardly understandeable reasons, nevertheless, it is not proven until there is an independent commission, which goes to all areas, not only Naxcivan, but also parts of Armenia (Zangezur and Yerevan primarily), as well as occupied territories such as Karabakh. The current paragraph is 80% Armenian claims, and only 20% denials from Azerbaijan, and indeed, the paragraph is way too long. The video was shot by Armenians from Iran -- and appeared first on the Armenian TV. Whether it later appeared on Russian TV, such as RTR Channel whose director general is an Armenian, as well, is unknown to me and not very relevant, especially since the commentary, voice over the video, is in Armenian -- what is, however, that the video is of poor quality and it is neither possible to determine that it is actually Naxcivan and not Zangezur, and that those are Azerbaijanis, and not Armenians. HETQ's article clearly shows that: "The headstones had been brought here from somewhere else. Apparently they had been in someone's way, and he or she “liberated” the territory and decided to use them as building materials. No one had tried to prevent the dislocation, the carnage of headstones." Hence, the current wording is 1) giving too much credibility to Armenians claims, being one-sided, and 2) presents the alleged destruction is some kind of a state-policy, and not more simple explanation like the one given by Baghdasaryan, which is carelessness and disregard for history in a modern consumption-oriented society which is only interested in endlessly using and abusing resources.

For some reason, the link about HETQ/Baghdasaryan was again completely removed -- someone is really afraid of it, I wonder why?

If we mention simply Baghdasaryan, and not HETQ of Armenia, then we should do same with IWPR, adn all other stories.

Here's what I propose:

According to a report and photo-evidence by the HETQ investigative journalists of Armenia publication, many destroyed khachkars have appeared in Yerevan itself, but brought from other parts of the country. The fact that demolished khachkars have appeared on Armenian soil implies that the destruction was done by Armenians themselves. "Apparently they had been in someone's way, and he or she “liberated” the territory and decided to use them as building materials. No one had tried to prevent the dislocation, the carnage of headstones", writes HETQ report's author, Edik Baghdasaryan. "Armenians everywhere have closed ranks to protest against the barbarous destruction of Armenian khachkars by Azerbaijanis in Nakhidjevan," Baghdasaryan said. "But who will protest, who will fight against us, here at home? Perhaps we should appeal to various international organizations and ask them to come and protect our treasures from ourselves?"

--AdilBaguirov 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll agree to that. I have been to Syunik (Zangezur) and I have seen areas such as Kapan and Satanayi Kamurj (Satan's Bridge) as well as the Tatev Monastery. From the areas I have been (and from what photographs I have seen of other parts of Syunik), I was able to visualize this very green atmosphere. Admittedly, I have not been by the Iranian border, so you may have something there.

I apologize if I over-generalized on Nakhichevan. I have seen photographs of areas such as Shakhbuz, which look really green, though I myself have never been there. On the other hand, I have seen lots of images of the desert-like and mountainous areas of Nakhichevan, which is what I usually tend to associate with it. Anyway, it doesn't matter, at least we reached a compromise and that's all that counts. Regards, Clevelander 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, most important is the agreement reached. You are correct about Naxcivan's environment in general-- indeed, most of it is the way you described, especially the part that is concerning us, which is near the Iranian border, Julfa, etc. But of course other parts of Naxcivan -- I am not sure about what percentage though, probably about 30% -- have both forests and nice pastures. Unfortunately, both Naxcivan and Zangezur are being deforested and have soil erosion problems. Not sure what they do about it, although I've witnessed some impressive initiatives from the Az. Ministry of Ecology to reverse deforestation in the past years. --AdilBaguirov 23:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What is the relevency of referring to what happens in Armenia? True, the Armenian government is hypocritical and various Armenian monuments are in danger, they even had a military practice on the border threatning Ani monuments. But what is the relevancy of this here? Am I adding the Armenian genocide in khojali article? Fad (ix) 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This matter is closed.--Eupator 21:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, let's not hyperbolize and blow things out of proportion. You are free to implement your suggestion, but remember that it's a two-way street, and immediately information about Khojaly massacre, March massacre, Van uprising, pogroms in Gugark, Spitak, etc., will appear as well in relevant Armenian pages. --AdilBaguirov 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You should read carefully, I think I was clear. and no, this was not a suggestion. I requested the relevency of Armenia's hypocrasy which Steven Sim, who I personally know, document in Nakhichevan. True, some reliks and Khahkhars were brought from Nakhichevan, this is a secret for no one. You will find some exposed in Armenia. What we are talking here about is the destruction of countless numbers of them, not some trourist taking some pieces fallen on the floor and moving it illegally to Armenia. As for your second point, are you making threats of POV pushing? Fad (ix) 00:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, I've protected this page to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article and let me know once protection is no longer needed. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to POV edits.

Fadix and Eupator revert the article to their POV version. They restore the reference to Georgian professor, which is false, as Adil has clearly shown in his above posting. Also Eupator removes the phrase that the settlement of the Armenians was massive, while the even Griboyedov notes that ”Несоразмерность сия превышает всякое понятие” (Disproportion (of the settlement of Armenians) is beyond any comprehension). I suggest they stop pushing for their POV version and discuss the changes on the talk page first. Grandmaster 08:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1. http://www.nato.int/acad/fellow/97-99/menteshashvili.pdf
2. Sir Henry Rawlinson, 14 Nov 1859, "Georgia and Caucasus", Report #838, from: British documents on foreign affairs - reports and papers from the Foreign Office confidential print, Part I, from the mid-nineteenth century to the First World War. Series A, Russia, 1859-1914, General editors Kenneth Bourne and D. Cameron Watt, University Publications of America, 1983, p. 11.
3. HETQ Online (Armenia), "We Need to Defend Ourselves from Ourselves", by Edik Baghdasaryan, April 10, 2006
4. HETQ Online (Armenia), "We Need to Defend Ourselves from Ourselves", by Edik Baghdasaryan, April 10, 2006
6. HETQ Online (Armenia), "We Need to Defend Ourselves from Ourselves", by Edik Baghdasaryan, April 10, 2006

• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles